Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY

11.5 a.m.

Mr. John Wells: I beg to move,
That this House, believing that an efficient and modern horticultural industry is essential for the supply of high quality fresh and reasonably priced fruit and vegetables, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to assist the reorganisation of wholesale markets, to encourage standard grades and to re-affirm its determination to protect the industry from unfair competition by imports.
I have the honour to represent what I believe to be the premier horticultural constituency. No doubt other hon. Members from elsewhere may not believe that. Nevertheless, I am very grateful to those of my hon. Friends who represent horticultural constituencies which have other specialities for the very many valuable points they have given to me. In particular, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) for much useful help and information. I am particularly glad to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture here, because he has built up a considerable reputation in Brussels and elsewhere as a true friend of horticulture. I hope that this reputation will continue and stand firm now that the Brussels negotiations are over.
We feel that with the ending of the Brussels negotiations for the Common Market there is a great question mark left in front of British horticulture. I do not seek this morning to tell the Government what I think they should do, but I am extremely anxious to hear from them what they intend to do. This horticultural industry of ours is not the Cinderella of agriculture. People who say that it is are doing our industry a grave disservice. There have been, and there are today, many prosperous and successful growers whose prosperity depends largely upon their own

endeavours. The man who is producing good clean produce and marketing it well gets the good living that he rightly deserves.
Our industry has been traditionally supported by a system of tariffs. This appears to have worked very well in the past and I hope that the Government will continue it. But I have certain doubts about our tariff system amounting to any real protection in monetary terms. The total volume of imported fruit and horticultural produce is £135 million. When obviously £30 million to £35 million might be said to apply to those commodities which compete directly with home produce, the total is a much smaller sum. One should also bear in mind that the £30 million to £35 million a year includes Northern Hemisphere apples and pears which should not be included in any reckoning of tariff protection because tariffs do not apply to apples at all during the home produce season and the tariff on pears is virtually negligible. I believe, therefore, that the correctly adjusted figure of tariff protection is as low as £15 million a year. Therefore, although I believe that the tariff has been useful, and I ask the Government to continue it as long as possible, we shall delude ourselves if we think that a very large sum of money is involved.
As a great trading nation, we are bound in the long run to accept with open arms the idea of the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions, but when this comes I hope that the Government will find some alternative and comparable method of supporting the horticultural industry to the tune of, perhaps, £15 million, which would appear to be just about the balance between success and failure.
My main problem today and the main problem facing the industry is in the sphere of markets and marketing. Most hon. Members have read Lord Stonham's plan outlined in the Grower on 16th February, but there are indeed very many snags to this new Utopian plan, as was shown, quite rightly, in the subsequent issue by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). I do not want to deal in detail with the Stonham plan, because I think all hon. Members who are familiar with this industry are aware of the weaknesses of that plan. The present Covent Garden


system has, I suppose, lasted—I will not say unchanged, but more or less, with minor variations, from the time of Nell Gwyn to the time of Elizabeth II. I hope that if the Government are going deeply into the matter of market reorganisation and new markets they will not seek to set up rigid markets but that any new thinking they may have on this subject will be flexible.
We are acutely aware that the price paid for land on which to build new markets, which are large structures, is really the essence of the matter. The land in the vicinity of Covent Garden, if it were to be rebuilt on the present site, is worth something like £15 a sq. ft. Hon. Members are aware of the great and successful new market at Sheffield that has been erected since the war. There, I understand, the value of the land was something like 2s. a sq ft. This is a very different matter. If we are to have successful new markets, they must not be at such a vast capital cost that the tolls and services that they offer price themselves out before they begin.
Some people outside—and I am afraid that many growers are included—seem to believe that the clock auction is the panacea for all their troubles. I do not agree. No doubt, the clock auction is very good and I hope to say something more of this later. It is the essential services that lie behind the auction—the parking, the handling, the display and all the other facilities, the organisation and the ancillary services—that really matter. Unless the land on which these ancillary services are to be sited is reasonably cheap, then no new system of marketing is likely to be successful. The actual techniques of selling are likely to vary from time to time in the future. Therefore, although, as I have said and other people before me have said, there is no magic in the clock itself, I should like to see some clocks introduced into this country so that we can get the feeling of the idea experimentally. This would be useful.
The great feeling of growers is that their costs in the market today are too high. The grower wants to see a reduction of his costs in the market, and this is a matter of organisation behind the scenes rather than the actual method of selling. If I might give an example, take Brentford Market, which will be

known to many hon. Members. The approximate annual value of producepassing through there is of the order of £6 million. At a roughly comparable market, at Rotterdam, it is about £4 million. At Brentford Market, I understand, there are 150 salesmen. At Rotterdam there are six operators operating three clocks. Here is the real rub. At Brentford there are 350 to 400 manual workers, whereas at Rotterdam there are 40 to 50. It is in the mechanical handling and the ancillary services that lie behind the market that the real saving may be achieved.
Again, there are some 140,000 retailers in the country—perhaps twice as many retailers as there are growers, and many of these people are woefully inefficient. Naturally, not all of them are. There are same retailers in the horticultural industry who have most efficient businesses. But, unfortunately, at the retailing end there is too much waste of money which is pushing up the price to the housewife. I believe that the inefficient retailers must look at their more successful neighbours. They must look at the chain stores, at which they are duly alarmed. They must look at the methods used by these organisations and think again about their own businesses.
We must have more primary markets in production centres, and I believe that it is here that we might introduce some experimental clocks. I do not want to follow the Stonham plan and have a mad duplication, at public expense, of the entire marketing system—this would be absurd—but there is scope for more growers' markets in the production centres. At the same time, it is only fair t9 say that I understand that at Pershore—and I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) in his place—there has recently been a trend away from auction selling to sales by private treaty, which might seem to be a contradiction to the trend in which hon. Members are expecting the industry to move.
I ask my right hon. Friend, when considering this matter, to give closes attention to the French system than the Dutch. Holland is a very small country and its geographical and distributive problems are quite different from ours. We would be deluding ourselves if we thought that Holland provided the sole answer. I believe that the French, with


their market intelligence system and their methods, are considerably ahead of us. I will not say that they are ahead of Holland, but the Dutch system suits the Dutch whereas I believe the French system, or something like it, might suit us better.
Naturally the flower producers want to see a national price-setting market retained, and I am glad to see the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) is maintaining the tradition of St. David's Day by wearing a daffodil in his buttonhole. This matter of having a national price-setting market for flowers—and we all remember the Runciman Committee's view on this—may become very difficult if we are faced with this high price of land on the Covent Garden site. Therefore, I hope that the new trend will be remembered, and that there may be a feeling towards more flexible markets perhaps not in the very heart of London.
There is also the new move towards direct selling from growers and growers' co-operatives to chain stores and supermarkets. This is another reason why it would be foolish to set up large permanent markets, a duplication of the present system, vast structures of reinforced concrete. I believe that even within fifteen years we shall not need this sort of thing. I know that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has this week been visiting Kent and has seen one of the leading growers' co-operative organisations trading direct with great chain stores. Naturally, they still send to the market, but this direct selling has come to stay. I believe that the greatest weakness of the Stonham plan lies in this idea of duplication.
One appreciates that my right hon. Friend is still awaiting reports from the provincial market authorities and it is difficult for him to say anything today, before he has received those reports. However, I hope that, as soon as the reports are available and he has had reasonable time to study them, he will set out as quickly as humanly possible a new flexible scheme which will enable growers to have cheaper marketing.
People sometimes say that cheap credit is not the only answer, but since many local authorities will be asked to establish new markets, I hope that the Government will see their way to assisting those

authorities which find themselves in difficulties where there is a reasonable requirement for a new market and where the old market is out-dated. If the Government see fit to provide credit for local authorities, I hope that they will bear in mind also that the growers' co-operatives or bodies of growers establishing producer's markets might well be entitled w similar assistance.
It is fashionable for some people—Lord Stonham is one—to attack all commission salesmen as though they were villains to a man. This is just not true, and it does a great deal of harm to a substantial and reputable body of men. I deplore attacks of this kind which do not get answered because they cannot be answered. The honest commission salesman is doing a very good job for his grower. He gives him a service. He provides him with empties and all the rest, with market intelligence, and, perhaps most valuable of all, in many cases he provides first-rate technical information which would not readily be available to the grower from other sources. I am not decrying the N.A.A.S. or our great research organisations, of which I approved wholeheartedly, but I believe that the practical technical advice which the larger firms of commission salesmen are able to offer to their growers is of great value because it comes in simple language which the growers can understand.
Finally on the subject of marketing, I am glad to hear that, in recent days, an Institute of Horticultural Salesmen has been formed. I believe that this will perform a useful function in the future.
Another great weakness of Lord Stonham's plan is his insurance fund, which could not possibly work satisfactorily unless 80 per cent. of growers immediately supported it and adhered to the principle. I just do not believe that they would. It is most improbable. They have their loyalties to their existing methods, and I cannot imagine that this scheme would possibly get off the ground.
Technically, we are far ahead of most other countries in agricultural and horticultural growing. Every year we see great new advances. In Kent, during the past season, we saw such new developments as the grafting of tomatoes.


The new mushroom industry which has developed in recent years has shown enormous technical advances. The efficiency of our watercress industry, producing a pure and valuable food to the value of nearly £1 million a year—technically a very difficult thing to do—is notable. Those of us who are interested in water resources are all too well aware that natural water is often polluted, yet the watercress industry is able to produce, from pure water, as it must, a valuable food in good quantities.
Technically, we have nothing to fear from any other country in competition, but it is to marketing in the widest sense—by this I mean more than just the markets about which I have just been speaking—to the techniques of grading, packing and presentation, that we must look again. Those growers who take trouble with grading and presentation are already reaping rewards. Grading and standardisation of products are essential.
I have long been an advocate of minimum grades and standardisation of packs, but I hope that the industry will put its own house in order before coming to the Government for compulsion. I am well aware that there is a strong body of opinion in the industry which wants Government compulsion immediately in this matter, but I hope that the industry will try once more to institute uniformity of grading and a minimum grade of its own volition before corning to the House to seek compulsory powers. However, it it fails to get unanimity and a satisfactory grading system, then we should, I believe, be justified in the House in providing for a satisfactory minimum grade.
We must remember that the vast amount of compulsion in the horticultural industry of Holland came only when the Dutchmen were on their uppers. There is no other word for it. Our industry in this country is nothing like on its uppers. It is very prosperous. It only needs a little more help. It is worried about various things and it wants a bit of extra help from the Government. It is not on its uppers, and we shall not get a body of independent men to submit to discipline of the sort to which the Dutch submit unless they are on their uppers, which we do not wish to see.
Hon. Members are well aware of the great traditions of independence of mind among individual Dutch citizens. For 400 years, they have been, perhaps, the most independent-minded people in the world. Yet, suddenly, in the 1930s, they were told that a man might not be a grower unless he passed an examination in growing. Growers in Holland must not grow what they want but what they are told to grow. I cannot see our industry submitting to this kind of discipline today.
We must look to the problems which lie ahead. The consumption of fresh fruit has declined in this country from pre-war days. Immediately before the war, consumption was 78·5 lbs. per head of the population per year. In 1960—this is the latest figure I have—consumption was 76·9 lbs., a decline of very nearly 2 lbs. per head of fresh fruit per annum throughout the population.
I realise that this decline is compensated for by the increase in consumption of processed fruit, but, with the vast rise in living standards among all sections of the population which we have enjoyed since 1951, it is important that people should realise that they might well increase very considerably their consumption of fruit.
The publicity efforts in which the National Farmers' Union has indulged have been well intentioned but really very feeble. If there is not some definite standardisation, some definite voluntary discipline, even a simple "Eat More Fruit" campaign of the sort we have had in the past will not be a success. We must have standardisation, and then publicity can follow. We are all aware of the great success of the "Drinka Pinta …" campaign elsewhere in agriculture. I see no reason why, if we have a standard product in horticulture, we should not have something similar. I shall not go in for slogan making this morning; perhaps the National Farmers' Union will offer a competition to those who wish to do so.
The O.E.C.D. scheme for the standardisation of fruit and vegetables has been a great success. It has meant a great step forward in Europe. I believe that it would not be too difficult to devise a modification of it suitable for this country. We should have had to have it had we entered the Common


Market. Why should not we have a modified step in this direction to help our growers and our housewives to know, when they buy, that they get what they think they are buying? I have long been an advocate of sensible consumer protection, and I believe that standardisation of horticultural produce would be a move in this direction.
I deplore the short and sad life of the Horticultural Marketing Council, which seemed to be a step in the right direction, but it had no power to impose grades. It is only fair to say that the National Farmers' Union is sometimes criticised for having killed the H.M.C., but this is not quite true because the farmers by a small majority voted in its favour, whereas I understand that the wholesalers voted four to one and the retailers eight to one against. Perhaps they lacked enthusiasm for their cause.
If there should be any new publicity levy, as I hope there might be, it could probably be set up under the 1947 Act, which gave birth to the Horticultural Marketing Council, and perhaps my right hon. Friend would be able to assist in providing Government time if this should be necessary to get it going.
The Government have in the past given considerable benefits on the fringes of the industry. In each of the last two years just over £1¼ million has been spent on research. We have seen expanding technical education in horticulture in suitable centres. In the technical college, in my own constituency of Maidstone, as, I am sure, in other hon. Member's constituencies, the technical colleges offer good courses. But these small matters are really not enough. We need something more.
One of the big problems facing us today—facing the whole of Europe today—is the glut of apples which is prevalent in every country of Europe. The French have given massive grants for grubbing up their old orchards. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not ask me how they are paid, because he knows, even better than I, that it is almost impossible to unravel the French method of agricultural support; but those of us who have friends or relations who are farming or growing in France are well aware of the fact that there has been Government aid there for grubbing up old orchards and planting golden delicious.
There are vast new acreages coming into bearing throughout Europe. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the help which the Government have given us in this country for grubbing up old orchards, but it is a drop in the ocean. Two years ago, the total grant ran at about £17,000 and last year there was an increase to £27,000. That is quite ridiculously small. We must have something that has a little bite in it. The total number of cases which received these grants two years ago was 134 and last year it was 243. This is nowhere near enough. Unless we can get a much larger Government grant for grubbing up old orchards we shall make no progress in that direction.
It is the dirty fruit which comes from many of these old orchards that provides the glut in a surplus year. It is not really good fruit, and if these old orchards could be got rid of, it would assist the industry substantially in moving towards a minimum grade. The salesmen honestly do not want these bad apples, but they are frightened of offending their clients by sending them back, and therefore they are thrown on the market to the disadvantage of all. Those who like myself are interested in consumer protection are well aware that when there is a proper minimum grade applied the immediate effect is for more fruit to be consumed and more fruit of a better quality at a highly competitive price.
The Government in recent years have assisted agricultural and horticultural co-operation in a modest way. There are one or two points about co-operation which, I believe, need to be expanded and amplified. The sum of £100,000 which was given to A.C.C.A. under the Horticultural Act is now nearly all used up, and I believe that if horticultural co-operation is to make real progress there must be a further injection of Government money. The Government's direct expenditure on co-operation, so far as I can unravel the figures, was £6,200 in 1960–61 and £10,250 in the current year. This is scarcely enough.
The legislation that we recently had allowing an increase in capital of cooperatives was a step in the right direction. Again this came in the first place through a Private Member's Bill. I believe that it is important for the Government to realise that the great


horticultural co-operatives are now very large businesses. They have the difficulty that many of their buildings are now re-rated. They are likely to be in current difficulties the month after next. Therefore, I believe that if horticultural co-operatives are to thrive this limit on their capital should be looked at very closely. There may be a good reason for leaving some top limit, but I cannot see one so long as the businesses are properly conducted.
Many co-operative ventures are now registered under the ordinary Companies Act. Perhaps some arrangement might also be made through the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation or some other para-governmental agency to assist the co-operatives in finding credit. I am not in favour of a free-for-all of cheap credit. This can indeed provide millstones round people's necks, but those co-operatives which have good schemes, good property and a viable plan to put forward might well get more financial assistance from the Government.
These are all small things that the Government have done for the advantage of horticulture but there are also a number of minor pin-pricks administered to the industry not by my right hon. Friend but by his colleagues, and I would ask him to look with an eagle eye at some of those pin-pricks which his colleagues are liable to inflict upon the industry. For instance, about 18 months ago we had a tax on apple juice. This virtually killed a brand-new industry which was using up a lot of surplus apples. In recent days we have seen the absurd inclusion in the current Weights and Measures Bill of red and white currants. Red and white currants are not a staple article of food. My right hon. Friend must, if he will, get somebody to look closely at the minor activities of his colleagues which can have such bad side-effects on the industry.
Dumping has not been a very serious problem with horticulture in the past, but, as I have already said, there is this vast glut of apples about to break in Europe and this problem will be with us for many years to come. I believe that the existing anti-dumping mechanism works too slowly for such highly-

perishable articles as horticultural products. All hon. Members remember the strawberry pulp episode of two summers ago when a glut of pulp appeared to be dumped. The home market price fell. Then, by the disaster of botrytis to the crop, there was virtually no home crop. Therefore, the price rose and the Government were able to turn round and say that nothing was the matter. I ask my right hon. Friend to think very deeply about the slow method of operation of our anti-dumping mechanism.
Many growers complain that commission salesmen in the market sell foreign produce on commission. I do not believe that this is necessarily a matter for Government interference, but it causes considerable concern that salesmen are in a position to sell foreign produce on commission, and therefore are very anxious to dispose of it at a quite low figure because some commission is better than no commission at all. There is a feeling among growers that it would be preferable if commission salesmen had to buy firm when they were buying from abroad and had to sell their own property rather than sell on commission.
I must admit that I have a very slender personal knowledge of the British glasshouse industry, because in my constituency we have few glasshouses and I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friends who have told me about the position in their constituencies and elsewhere. However, I believe that the fundamental difficulty of the British glasshouse industry lies in town and country planning. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has made a great break-through this week in this respect. For over a hundred years the traditional pattern of glasshouse production has been that glasshouses are built round large towns on good flat land. As the town expands, houses are built where the glasshouses were before and the glasshouse producers get a good price for their land and move out further. This has been a natural evolution for over 100 years.
With the recent war and the green belt policy devolved around London in the 1930s, this came to a standstill. In the war years, although some of the glass was getting very old and smoked over, the growers were still able to get a fair return


from their capital. But, with the postwar town and country planning legislation introduced by right hon. and hon. Members opposite every 20 or 30 years has come to a standstill. I was about to say that the glasshouse areas are no more green than coal. We are all well aware that the Lea Valley is not green. There are similar areas outside all our great cities. I believe that some direct assistance must be given in these areas through town and country planning such as my right hon. Friend announced this week in connection with the Lea Valley. I believe that all the growers will be very grateful to him for his sound thinking on this point.
Another important aspect is the implementation of our clear air legislation. In the past glasshouses became smoked over and quire useless relatively quickly, but, as the principle of clean air proceeds, so I believe the life of glasshouses will be extended.
Another important point in glasshouse production is the provision of further capital for glasshouse reconstruction or building. Growers can now get only one-third of the cost of a project under the horticultural improvement scheme, and this is applicable only to a very limited range of projects. If we are to have a viable glasshouse industry in 20 years' time, this one-third should be increased, and some financial help should be given to those in the industry. I am the first to admit that a glasshouse is, perhaps, a bad collateral security for a mortgage, but one-third seems to be very law, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this matter again.
I have said that I believe that tariffs are the bulwark of our industry, and this applies particularly to the glasshouse industry. People are definitely worried about the import situation. If they can be assured of continuing tariffs and improving markets, I believe that they will do what they can in grading and presentation.
Although they may fear imports, this industry has a great export potential. It is here that I hope my right hon. Friend will take some positive steps in the near future. I have indicated that there is likely to be a glut of apples in Europe, but there are many other things which we might export. I realise that if we had gone into the Common Market it might

have been easier for us to export, but even out of the Common Market there is no reason why we should not try to export to Scandinavia. We have an adverse balance of payments situation with Finland. As hon. Members who have visited that country are well aware, if one goes out to dinner one takes the hostess a bunch of flowers even in the depths of winter. The Finns buy more flowers per head of population than almost any other race in the world. Why do not we send more flowers there? The value of our flower production has increased substantially since the war. There is no reason why we should not look into this. We might well do something about it in other Scandinavian countries. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will get on to the various diplomatic channels and remind them that the industry with which we are dealing today is made up of many small units which have to be helped to make a start.
One leading co-operative of which I am aware tried last year to send some produce to Belgium and Germany. Unfortunately, although this was well-intentioned, it was not very successful. I hope that these people will not be discouraged by one failure and that my right hon. Friend will do something to help them. This particularly applies to our nursery stock industry and to our new pot plant industry, which has virtually grown up since the war.
I repeat that the horticultural industry is no Cinderella. It is a viable industry, and I believe that it is playing its full part in the nation's economy. People who say that it is only a minute industry which has not grown and that it is the poor relation of agriculture should bear these figures in mind. Before the war agricultural production other than horticultural production was valued at just under £260 million. Horticultural production pre-war was £32 million. In 1961–62, the value of agricultural production other than horticultural production had increased to £1,428,000. Horticultural production had increased to £164 million. Horticultural production has gone up step by step with the general agricultural prosperity.
Agriculture has had vast Government assistance. Horticulture has had small aids here and there. It has also had minor pinpricks. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look widely and wisely at the


horticultural industry, particularly when he gets the reports on provincial markets, in order to see what he can do to help this successful and prosperous industry to progress further and to export to the nation's advantage.

11.50 a.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) for raising this vital question of the horticultural industry. He has done a constructive service to the industry by once again airing the problem in the House of Commons. I did not want to interrupt the hon. Member during his speech, because we were all interested in the constructive case he was putting forward, but when he significantly remarked that he was pleased to see that I was this morning supporting the flower industry by wearing a daffodil—because it St. David's Day—I was reminded that I had met a problem of the horticultural industry when coming through the West End this morning. I walked into a beautiful florist's shop, where there were cases of flowers from the market. I said that I would take a few daffodils and the girl pointed out a little bunch to me. At one time I could have bought an acre for what I paid for ten this morning—7s. 6d. for one daffodil. So my nostalgic nationalism and my feeling of duty to the flower industry this morning cost me quite a bit.

Mr. G. R. Howard: It cannot be worth 7s. 6d.

Mr. Davies: I am pleased to say that it might have come from the hon. Member's area and it pleases me to give my support.
One of the problems behind the industry and one which is of fundamental importance is that of overhead costs. I do not want to be unfair to florists or to the siting of shops, but terrific overhead costs face small shopkeepers who like to keep a beautiful and attractive shop, which in itself is a thing of beauty. These things have to be met in the price at which the consumer buys the flower.
I do not want to get involved in that this morning lest I should be out of order, but when we talk about the horticultural industry, whether the flower side, the nurseryman's side or other aspects, we

must remember that in trying to sell his products the nurseryman is battling against influences which have nothing to do with the horticultural industry but which certainly have something to do with the price of the end product to the consumer, as in the case of flowers.
One other point of interest is well worth bringing out. The hon. Member for Maidstone will remember that the National Farmers' Union held a one-day conference on the marketing of flowers at Agriculture House, Knightsbridge, on 15th February, at which leading continental marketing experts for the flower industry were present. I shall not bore the House by giving massive quotations from the report of the conference, of which most hon. Members will be aware, but the chairman of the meeting and one of the speakers congratulated the British flower trade
on having built up a promotional fund during the last few years which, compared with most of the much older continental funds, was of a high standard.
My reason for mentioning that is that all of us are fairly convinced that any money which the Government—whether the former Labour Government or the present Tory Government—have given to the horticultural industry has been well and constructively used for the promotion of the industry.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Maidstone said in the latter part of his speech about the custom in Finland. The custom of giving flowers is observed in other Scandinavian countries and I should like to see it developed here. If the House will bear with me, I will quote another extract from the conference on the marketing of flowers. At page 2, the report states that living standards have gone up enormously during the last few decades and town life has made people wish to have flowers and plants in their homes and offices. It goes on to say that:
The flower retail trade in its present development did not meet the wishes of the general public to buy a simple bunch of flowers at a moderate price. In some countries like his own "—
the speaker was referring to Holland—
… there were about 3,800 street vendors but apart from these there were many more flower shops than there were in the early thirties, roughly about 1,750 for a population of 12 million.
He added that in consequence of the increase in the total sales of flowers and plants, the


turnover of the flower shops had also gone up and that the position of the florist in general was much better than in the thirties. He had found that in the Netherlands there were 1·6 flower shops per 10,000 inhabitants in 1950 and 22 flower shops in 1960. In England, Scotland and Wales there were about ·5 flower shops per 10,000 inhabitants, while figures for 1960 were lacking.
I mention that because there is room for the encouragement of attractive flower shops in our new towns and around the new estates. To somebody with enterprise and initiative, this offers probably a good living.
I hope that, whatever Government are in power, they will not use the knots of bureaucracy to tie up the organisation of flower-selling too bureaucratically, because tribute should be paid to the flower sellers in the streets of our big towns and even to the barrow boys who sell flowers attractively at street corners. No figures are available to me, but these people must make a great contribution to this section of horticulture. Whichever Government are in power, we must realise that in the end salesmanship and units of distribution are absolutely necessary. I hope that these small people, who for a long time have made a great contribution to the flower industry at street corners or with their barrows, will not be wiped out of existence in the name of efficiency.
I should like also to mention a few points of my own and to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) for an article—although possibly not agreeing with it—in the Grower in answer to the Stonham plan, in which the hon. Member touches upon the nub of the problem. No matter what policy we have, the nub of the problem lies in this. The hon. Member states that we must accept that it is a fair and steady market and prices that matter most, and that
we have two major aspects to look at: market presentation of home produce, and import policy.
No matter what Government come to power, if we want the industry to be built up we must consider the import policy. Let us forget the Common Market. Do not go harking back to the shadows of the Common Market, for heaven's sake. We are now out on our own and we must build up this industry. This will not be the first time in history that Britain has been on her own. We

have only to go back to Dunkirk days to see what we can do and if we can do it militarily surely we can do it peacefully, economically and constructively.
I quite agree with those words there, but in the criticism of the Stonham plan let me make this point clear. I am a member of the Labour Agricultural Association of which Lord Stonham is chairman, and we are together trying to hammer out agricultural and horticultural policies, and Lord Stonham has made a contribution to the debate on the horticultural industry by throwing into public discussion, in an article in the Grower, some ideas many of which are constructive, but I must make it clear that the—shall I call it the Stonham plan?—the Stonham plan is not the official policy of the British Labour Party. So let us have no more wonderful pamphlets from that bucket shop down the road there of the Tory Party saying that the Stonham plan is the plan of the Labour Party for horticulture.

Mr. J. Wells: What is it, then?

Mr. Davies: My job this morning is not to put forward the plan of the Labour Party. It was the hon. Gentleman's job to put forward the Conservative plan, but we have heard nothing about it except criticisms and begging requests.

Mr. Wells: I did say specifically that I was posing a question and not seeking to tell my right hon. Friend, because I think it is up to him to tell us, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with all his great experience of horticulture, from his side of the House will tell us what the Labour Party's plan is.

Mr. Davies: I am too old a hand to be caught like that. I am always in trouble with my own party about certain pet policies of my own—one has only to go back to the Polaris question; and I am certainly not putting forward the Davies plan for horticulture. This I am not going to do.
The truth is, of course, that on both sides of the House this morning we are trying to air the problems of the horticulture industry. So do not let us have a silly tossing backwards and forwards of what are 100 per cent. party political points on this issue. However, I thought


it was my duty to make it crystal clear to the horticultural industry that the Stonham plan was not the official plan of the Labour Party but that Lord Stonham put it forward for discussion.
I hope that if I am not interrupted much more I shall take only another five minutes because I can see a number of people with constituency and other interests desiring to get into the debate.
I think it worth while to pick up this point. The glasshouse industry itself has problems, not necessarily connected with immediate production. I am glad that the hon. Member pointed out the difficulties of this industry and of the broiler and poultry side of the agricultural industry in having to meet the rigidity of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in questions concerning town and country planning. There does seem to be rigidity in the administration, and it would be helpful if there were a little more laxity in the rules for town and country planning procedures to give the people in the glasshouse industry and other sections of the agricultural and horticultural industries the possibility of opportunities of building glasshouses and poultry sheds and broiler houses in areas on the verges of conurbations and towns. There seems to be too much rigidity about green belt issues.
I know a man who has invested—it may not seem much to some people in a bigger way of business—£2,500 in the broiler industry. He is well known, and he writes articles in magazines dealing with these matters. He has been held up now eight months because of discussions going on about planning questions between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture while he is yearning to earn his bread and butter. He cannot put up poultry houses at a point on the edge of the green belt and a conurbation. The air must be cleared so that there may be a constructive and intelligent plan put forward to enable the people who produce food and other horticultural products to get ahead with their work.
There has not been much mention in the debate of the nursery man except en passant and I think a word should be put in here for the nursery industry. Our nurserymen today play a big part in helping to make the British home and

garden much more beautiful than they were before. They should not be forgotten, and in considering town and country planning questions we should understand that the construction of nursery gardens is needed on the edge-of conurbations, and there should be a little latitude given to them in planning so that those people can develop this important beautifying industry for British homes.
The National Farmers' Union has made six suggestions about horticulture. I suppose we had better get them on the record. Many Members of this House much more experienced than I am have spent a long time trying to understand and explain the real problems of the industry. Indeed, that was shown by the very constructive and knowledgeable speech we had this morning from the hon. Member for Maidstone.
But here are the six points on horticulture from the National Farmers' Union. The first was that we need an examination of the markets in the industry. Secondly, we need some kind of horticultural improvement scheme. Thirdly, we need more publicity in the industry. Many of us will think of this, and we have seen it growing. Fourthly, we need co-ordination of views of the industry.
I should like to tell the industry that there is very often criticism, leaving aside all the party political criticisms, of politicians and Members on both sides of the House for not knowing what they want, but at the present moment I must say that in the horticultural industry there is very little co-ordination of views, and if anything were useful—I may be wrong and I stand subject to correction—and if anything constructive is needed at the moment for the industry I would say it should call a conference within itself, never mind the so-called experts, to produce and pitch into the pot of discussion constructive ideas for the industry. At the moment there seems to be no clarity about the direction in which it works.
The National Farmers' Union's fifth point was an advisory marketing council, and the sixth the need for grading and packing, and I agree with What was said by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely, who mentioned this in his article in the Grower.
He mentioned, too, the "slap-happy greengrocer". I like the phrase, but I would point out that in most towns today the slap-happy greengrocer is a person of the past. The average greengrocer today takes pride in the presentation of his commodities in his shop.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I did not want to be unfair to the decent greengrocer who is mending his ways. What I did say in the article was, I think, that the slap-happy greengrocer is on the way out, and a very good thing too.

Mr. Davies: Yes, there is no difference there between us.
Here we have an industry which has, too, to face weather hazards, which has to face its gluts, and which has to face its shortages, and which has to deal with nature and yet, having, like other hon. Members, travelled in Europe and elsewhere, I think we can be very proud of the productivity of this industry. It is our duty now to make this industry gird up its loins. In saying that I do not mean to make it do so by legislation, but to gird up its loins to face the competition which undoubtedly we are going to have as the Common Market and other European nations gear up to sell their own produce.
There I will leave it, so that other hon. Members may have a chance to get into the debate and give us constructive answers, but I hope that it will be quite clear from now on that the Stonham plan is not the official Labour policy for the horticultural industry, but an honest attempt to get discussion of its problems.

12.10 p.m.

Sir Peter Agnew: I join the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) in expressing the belief that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) has done a signal service in choosing the earliest opportunity that lay open to him to initiate a general discussion and review of the horticultural position soon after the ending of the Common Market negotiations.
I think it is true to say that while the issue was in doubt the horticultural industry began to steel itself against what it feared it might have to face if the negotiations came to fruition. I believe that the, reason why horticulturists came to be realistic about the oncoming position as they thought it might be was that

they realised that the overall decision as to whether Britain should join the Common Market or not would not depend alone upon the effects one way or the other upon the horticultural industry.
During that time, therefore, they steeled themselves, and I think their fears bred a sense of urgency among them. They began to consider what plans they could make in order to meet two things: first, the greater one, ultimately intensified foreign competition; secondly, the impact upon the home industry of part of the scheme of the Community with regard to horticulture—the introduction of compulsory grades and standards for all horticultural projects. I shall say more about that in a minute.
During last year our horticulturists also began to look more intensively than they had done before at what I broadly describe as the marketing arrangements of the industry. Writers in newspapers and other journals began to say that horticulture was seeking to make itself more efficient. When we say that horticulture ought to be more efficient, we must then proceed to divide the industry into, on the one hand, the producers, whose elementary function ends when their produce goes through the gate of their farm or holding, and, on the other hand, all those processes, complex and diverse, which take place before the housewife actually buys what she wants and takes it home. All the latter process comes under the general description of "marketing arrangements".
Before I say anything about those arrangements, I should like to say something straight out and now about the efficiency of horticultural producers. I believe that, by and large, our horticultural producing industry is as efficient as, and in a great many cases even more efficient than, Continental producers, wherever they may be. That ought to be placed upon the record.
But when it comes to marketing arrangements, it is undeniable that they are a patchwork quilt. When I describe them thus I do not do so in a condemnatory sense but merely to recognise that there are very many systems of marketing, all interlocked. Some of them begin, for example, through co-operatives, and then the co-operative itself uses methods which have already been mentioned, such as commission sales. No


general pattern is followed that one could say is descriptive of the whole industry.
However, not all of our marketing arrangements are such as can effectively carry out the main requirement, which is to satisfy the needs of the ultimate decider of what is good and what is not—the housewife. As has been mentioned, she is more and more tending to buy only good produce, which has, of course, to be at a reasonable price when she can find it, but she will buy it only where it is well presented and, very often—let us face this, too—housed for sale in the same emporium or shop as the rest of the household requisites which she seeks in her weekly shopping. Those are the facts that have to be faced.
The actual mechanism, largely a financial one, of the marketing is now beginning to come under very close examination. Marketing divides itself into several categories. There are the physical markets which are nearly at the end of the chain. When we think of markets we at once think of some of our big cities, not excluding London, where there are large market buildings, which are in many cases out of date for the purposes they have to serve. The problems arise whether they need to be demolished and rebuilt in more modern form, who is to pay for that, whether it will make a very great contribution towards the general efficiency of the marketing arrangements if and when that is done, whether it will benefit the producer and whether it will benefit the housewife—for it must satisfy both those categories of people in order to justify what will undeniably be the very great expenditure that will be involved.
With regard to marketing itself, other questions of physical machinery are involved. Clock auctions have been mentioned. I think it is true that the country could be absolutely honeycombed with clock auctions only at very great expense indeed. I think that at present there is no evidence that there ought to be a wholesale switch over to that system. I consider that we should be very cautious about it, though I would join my hon. Friend in thinking that some experimental clock auctions ought to be set up with Government and, perhaps, National Farmers' Union encouragement

so that we might see what we could learn from them.
Reference has been made to Lord Stonham's plan. The greatest emphasis made in this debate about that plan is that it is not Labour Party policy. That leads me to suppose that there must be many people, not only on the Opposition benches but certainly on the Government side of the House, who would not look with favour upon all the facets of that plan. It proposes to set up a vast public marketing authority. But when all the expense had been incurred and the very large number of officials that would be required had been recruited, it would still not be compulsory. People would use it only if they wished to do so. I do not think that such an authority should be set up with public money for such a purpose.
The plain fact of marketing is that in this country we employ many quite diverse methods. People are beginning to try to see whether there can perhaps be a general improvement in presentation, and are talking about grading. Could these things be achieved within our present system? If grading were made compulsory it would be costly but we are all alive to the advantages which can be achieved without an undue burden upon any one section of the industry.
The larger growers are already, in many cases, engaged in grading. Would not the best way to begin be to encourage smaller growers to combine in some way or another for that purpose, and thus help them bring their produce up to standard? They could perhaps form groups for the limited purpose of achieving better presentation. That would be better than introducing compulsory grading at this stage.
We should not restrict ourselves as to the way this is done. It may be done by co-operative organisations, which are useful features to be encouraged in the countryside. Marketing companies should also benefit from any assistance that can be given in this way. All these methods should be used for improving our general marketing system.
Another matter of great importance to the industry is the regulation of imports. Nobody now thinks that we should dismantle our tariff system and lay ourselves open to foreign competition.


Now that the Brussels negotiations have come to an end for an indefinite period, we need not worry too much about this now, since there can be no question of free horticultural competition from abroad.

Mr. Harold Davies: This would imply that we should also look at the G.A.T.T. again. Is the hon. Gentleman intending to raise that today?

Sir P. Agnew: No. I shall not try to explore the permutations and combinations of the G.A.T.T., which is a highly difficult subject in itself. It would take much too long. Suffice it to say that within our tariff system as we understand it, we have specific tariffs on produce and that the custom is that when the industry feels that a tariff needs raising because the foreign competition situation justifies it, application is made to the Board of Trade. I understand that at present there are no applications outstanding, but that does not mean to say that there will be none in future in order to keep the tariffs at the realistic level which can enable them to do what they were designed for.
But it would be idle to deny that the general climate towards tariffs in British industry as a whole—including manufacturing industry—is not likely to be very favourable for increases in tariffs either on horticultural produce or anything else. I am sure that far-seeing people in the horticultural industry recognise it. We are thus forced to consider whether some other system should not be substituted for the tariff system.
I shall not go into details but I ask my right hon. Friend to give some thought to the possibility of a minimum import price system at the ports in order to deal with the situation where, over a period of only two or three months, produce tends to be offered from abroad at a price that will cripple that season's work for our own producers. I think that that system could be used, although I could not go into detail about it. The tariff application system has worked very slowly. Indeed, in many cases—including tomato applications—it has really been much too slow. If we were to have a minimum price import system would not this speed up the administrative arrangements?
It may well be that if we are to see increased surpluses on the Continent we shall need to stiffen our arrangements for anti-dumping. As the Act stands now, not only does it have to be established that the produce concerned is being offered at a price lower than in the country of origin, but there also has to be a positive case made out to and accepted by the Government that our own home industry is being injured. That is a question not easy to prove. I should like to see our anti-dumping legislation amended so that the second qualification is no longer necessary before countervailing duties can be imposed. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that.
There is only one other matter I want to touch on and I make no apology for it. A grievance of long standing felt by growers is that the Government are lagging behind other Governments in not giving them any concession on cost in the form of remission of duty on the petrol which they must use in the small types of machinery they have to cultivate their holdings. These machines cannot be propelled by kerosene or diesel oil and thus they have not the advantage that agriculture has of being able to use lower cost fuels.
In other Commonwealth countries, Canada and New Zealand, for instance, there is a remission of duty for agricultural purposes. There are also remissions in Norway, Switzerland, France, the United States of America and the Republic of Ireland. There is even a precedent at home in England. The late Sir Stafford Cripps, of esteemed but austere memory, in 1950 introduced a scheme of remission of tax on agricultural and horticultural fuel. It is true that it lasted only one year, but it is on the record as having been given. He gave that remission when the tax on petrol was only 1s. 6d. a gallon. It has now nearly doubled and to that extent the case is strengthened.
I am not saying anything new when I suggest how such a remission could be given. Horticulturists would buy petrol at the ordinary pump price and then would make out claims on the appropriate forms which if necessary could be scrutinised by the county agricultural committee. That has already been done when the tax on fuel for glasshouse heating was raised. If it can


be done for general heating apparatus, why cannot it also be done for propulsive machinery? I do not expect my right hon. Friend who, of course, is not primarily in charge of what might be called budgetary and fiscal matters, to give me a specific reply this morning, but if I can I want to enlist him as an ally in making representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for consideration for inclusion in his next Budget.
I hope that the debate will have been useful and that it will have given horticulture some chance of taking stock of its position once again. This industry, which has to do its work on our incomparable soil—I will not argue on the Floor of the House with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, about which is the pre-eminent horticultural constituency, for that can be done elsewhere—does not wish at this stage to be frog-marched, but it does need and is deserving of every encouragement.

12.33 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) for raising this subject and I should like quickly to deal with some of the points from his speech and from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew). Many hon. Members will know that for a long time I have been advocating the experimental use of clock auctions, not to replace our present system of wholesaling—I think that that would be wrong—but so that we can have experiments in the West Country, the Midlands and the North, for instance, to see whether such a system would produce, as I think it would, competition, diversity and a better service.
We have heard about the growth of marketing by the big stores and the supermarkets. Stores like Marks and Spencers have an enormous ordering potential, but will order produce only if they can be regularly supplied with a standard grade and uniform production and so on.
My second question concerns Covent Garden. Some of us had grave doubts in the first place about the advisability of rebuilding the market in the same area when it could so easily have gone elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone referred to incentives for cooperatives. We want not to compel but to encourage the industry to go in for co-operatives as much as possible, especially in view of what I have just said about supplying stores and supermarkets. Those of us who know horticultural areas know how difficult it is to get horticulturists to co-operate in this way. If someone is grading at a station, or whatever it might be, there is always the danger of the idea that someone has got round him to give a better grade for his produce than for someone else's. Some financial incentive to encourage co-operatives would be excellent. I do not quite know whether it would be by helping with loans and financing efforts generally, but this is something which the Government will have to consider. Could my right hon. Friend say what assistance could be given if, for instance, a local authority wanted to erect a market or to help with horticultural marketing in its own area?
I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South said about the tariff system. We do not need to remind the Government that in all their publications they have said that tariffs should be the first assistance to horticulture, and that the home grower must have first place in the market. With that I entirely agree, but I also agree with what my hon. Friend said about the minimum price system. That would be an excellent idea and would not lead to the criticism that our own growers were holding the market to ransom by preventing the import of competitive produce. All hon. Members present know how the minimum price system works and I will not weary the House by describing it.
However, we must seriously consider the speed of applying such measures. We all know of cases when the dates of tariffs on potatoes, for instance, have been announced and we have had ships rushing in at the last moment and dumping potatoes on the market and thereby causing great harm to our own growers. With anti-dumping legislation, speed is essential. With the best will in the world, this is not a cricket match and we do not have to tell people of our intentions and send telegrams to the Polish or some other Government when we want action


taken quickly. The effect of the legislation must be that growers are protected in time.
Grading and packing are also important. Some companies come in for much criticism, but there is a wholesaling firm in my part of Cornwall which has done much useful work in encouraging people to join its grading and packing scheme, and that has been of general benefit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone referred to the industry's prosperity, but he should remember how some of our growers have suffered in the last few weeks. I know of one man whose loss on broccoli alone was more than £2,000, which is a great deal for the small farmer. Something must be done to help people of this sort. The people of Cornwall have had whole crops wiped out by these terrible conditions and are facing very serious losses. I am sure that the Government have this in mind, but I want to know what kind of help they can give to horticulturists.
One suggestion which I made to the Minister some eighteen months ago was that the Government might assist by helping to put up a processing plant in Cornwall. I am not saying that it should be in my area. I should like it to be in the middle of the county where it could be used for processing horticultural crops and, in addition, could be used to help that very depressed industry, the fishing industry. It would also be very useful to help with our present unemployment problem. Although this is not publicised as much as is the unemployment problem of the North-East, we have a difficulty in Cornwall especially when the visitors are not there and when there is a lot of seasonal unemployment.
The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) made a comment on the price of flowers. I should not like the House or the country to have the idea that growers in Cornwall or the Scilly Isles are selling daffodils for 7s. 6d. each.

Mr. Peart: I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) about this. Although he gave the impression that they were selling at 7s. 6d. each, he meant that they were selling at 7s. 6d. for ten.

Mr. Howard: Even so, I assure the House that many growers in Cornwall do not get high prices for flowers. We all

know that at such times as Mothers' Day the prices are boosted and then people ask, "Why do growers ask for all this help?" I assure the House that this is not a true reflection of the position and that we need to ask for assistance from time to time for the flower growers.
I am glad that the hon. Member raised the question of selling flowers in Scandinavia. I understand that there is quite a possibility of our selling our daffodils abroad, particularly in Scandinavia. There is considerable competition from our European competitors, but we are members of E.F.T.A., and I think that we should look at this problem from the E.F.T.A. point of view and see what we can do to expand our market in these E.F.T.A. countries which have long winters and no flowers and which also have this charming custom to which reference has been made—and which I should like to see spread here. I suggested to the section of the N.F.U. which deals with this publicity that we should have a publicity campaign on the basis of the status symbol—that one can best say thank you for having been entertained to dinner by sending flowers afterwards. This would be keeping up with the Joneses, as it were, and would be an excellent thing.
While I congratulate the hon. Member on his thoughtful speech, and also other hon. Members who have spoken, I hope that it will not be thought that horticulture is in a good way. At the moment in my area it definitely is not. It is going through difficult times. The Government have tried to help with their improvement schemes. But it is all very well to assist men by offering to put up one-third of the cost; we have to remember that they might not be able to produce the other two-thirds of the cost. In any event, the cost goes up when there is a Government grant attached to the job.
I hope that the Government realise just how bad things are in horticulture in Cornwall. I hope that they will show that they have a sympathetic understanding of the problems and will consider doing something, perhaps as an emergency measure, to help such persons as the man I have mentioned whose year's work, or work of the last six months, has been wiped out by the frost, which is no fault of his.
I hope that the Government will bear in mind that, whether they like it or not, horticulture is one of the most important industries in the country because of the type of man it produces. The Government should do everything possible to show them that we, as a Government, believe in their future and believe in doing everything we can in a practical way to help them.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I should like to join the general congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) on having introduced this Motion. I hope that the Minister will accept it and carry out its terms.
One point which always interests me in debates and discussions about agricultural policy is that it is always assumed that there is one single industry called horticulture. That is far from being the case, and one of the reasons why our discussions are sometimes a little diffuse is that the industry is one of such extraordinary variation. Fruit, flowers and vegetables are being grown, but in addition the business varies from the complicated, many-sided, market gardens of the specialists to the long-term orchard which may be down for fifty or 100 years and the catch crop which is on the land for only a month or two. There is a wide range of products from orchids to onions, from apples to asparagus.
In addition, the industry exists in all combinations with farming. It is important to remember that a great deal of our horticultural production takes place on farms and is mixed up with a farming system. The outlets are equally varied. They include the smart West End florist's shop, the hospitals, the hotels, the schools and many other outlets for vegetables and fruit. No single policy can attempt to cover all these varied sides of the business.
The industry deserves to be rated as of great importance not merely because of its output, which is valuable to the community, but also for other reasons, among which I include that of employment. It has always been fashionable to suppose in the last few years of full employment that if people left the land

and went into industry that was a beneficial development to the community. We may be getting away from those times. I think that the amount of employment which this industry gives, not only in itself but in all the industries which depend upon it, such as canning, freezing and many other allied industries, is an aspect which we should bear in mind. In my constituency the employment which horticulture provides is extremely important.
It is essential that there should be a supply of fresh, home-grown food available for the community. Without introducing any air of mysticism into the subject, I suggest that all horticulturists are gardeners and that we are all gardeners at heart. I think that it is of great benefit to the community to have running through it a strong home-produced element in commercial horticulture. The industry is widely based and exists around towns in all districts. It is a good thing from the point of view of the health of the community that this industry should be thriving and flourishing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) that the industry is not in a perfect state of health. On the other hand, it would be a great pity to spread gloom and despondency too widely over horticulture.
That was the mistake of Lord Stonham's article. It seemed to imply that everything was on the decline and in decay—which is far from the truth. Not only has presentation of produce improved enormously, but acreages of the various crops have remained steady; indeed, there have been some notable upward trends, particularly in the production of vegetables for processing, canning and freezing.
In my area the increase in the production of peas and beans for canning is of great importance to the industry. The amounts of home-produced canned fruit and vegetables is on the increase, and at a time like this, when vegetables are scarce because of the weather, it is important to see that we have a thriving canning, freezing, dehydrating and processing industry for fruit and vegetables. There have been some welcome developments in that respect, which have been to some extent encouraged by the policies followed by Her Majesty's Government.
I want to say a word about tariffs. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone said that we could expect the Kennedy Round and that horticulture must expect to face a decrease in the tariffs, or at least no increase in the tariffs. I am not so sure. The home industry is particularly exposed to competition from abroad. In many of our previous debates it has been said that there is no month of the year in which some of our horticultural produce is not subject to intense competition from the products of other parts of the world where climatic and other conditions are, for the time being, more favourable than ours.
For that reason the home industry is worthy of a modest degree of protection, and although I know that it is difficult for my right hon. Friend to look sufficiently far into the future to see all the possible contingencies, I hope that even if he cannot speak about detailed tariff arrangements he will be able to assure us that the policy of the Government is to continue this modest protection for the hortculture industry as a matter of general principle. In pea production the lack of a tariff has produced some very undesirable results for the consumer. This may not be a strictly horticultural instance, but our canning factories use a great quantity of dried as well as fresh peas from the fields. The acreage of peas for drying has been declining very sharply. In fact, it has fallen to about one-third of what it was in 1957–58. The amount of home-grown produce has therefore been reduced by more than half. It so happens that the supply of imported peas—chiefly from Alaska—is not quite so good as it was, and the price has risen very sharply.
The processors of peas, who have always opposed any tariff on the pea crop —very unwisely, in my opinion—are now faced with such a decline in home production that they are bound to have higher prices as a result. A moral is to be drawn from this, which applies to other sections of horticulture, namely, that if we remove protection, or if protection declines or is not adequate, there is a great danger of home production declining to a point at which costs rise sharply and the consumer suffers. I hope that this fact will be borne in mind in any tariff negotiations that may be entered into. Although I appreciate the virtues of cooperating in the Kennedy Round, it

would be very dangerous to hint that this must necessarily apply rigorously to the very modest protection which is now given to horticulture.
I always become a little mixed up when I see the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) wearing a daffodil on St. David's Day. I always think that he should be wearing a leek. Apparently it is not the fashion. If he had tried to buy one he would probably have found that it was not as cheap as it might have been. But he did not tell us whether he tested the leek market this morning. He introduced a slightly discordant party political note, in a very friendly style, and I want to say a word on that aspect of the matter. I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will enlighten us a little as to Socialist policy towards the horticulture industry. I know that my right hon. Friend will enlighten us, but I hope the hon. Member for Workington will also do so.
We have had a most extraordinary disavowal by the hon. Member for Leek. It may have been suggested to him that although he is a member of the British Socialist Agricultural Society it would not be a bad thing for him to disavow this so-called Stonham plan, which does have a slightly mouldy air about it, as if it had been contrived away back in the days of the Lucas Commission and brought out again specially for an article in a horticultural magazine. I am glad to know that it is not the official policy of the Socialist Party, but I should like to know what is. The party opposite has not been very warm-hearted towards tariff arrangements.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member must know that over the last two or three years when I have spoken on these matters from this Bench I have always supported the tariff. Indeed, I have criticised the Liberals more vigorously than have some hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Bullard: I will let the hon. Member off on that score, because he has supported the tariff. But it has never gone forth from the Labour Party that it believes in this method of helping the home industry.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member must not repeat something which is unfair. We have repeatedly said that we must have fair protection. We have stated this


on previous occasions in documents. Indeed, at our annual conference this point of view was put forward. I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue his argument.

Mr. Bullard: I accept that. I will content myself with saying that the Stonham plan is the only recent pronouncement at length on horticultural policy, and that that does not say a word about the control of imports.

Mr. Pearl: It is Lord Stonham's own plan.

Mr. Bullard: I had hoped that we would hear a speech from the Liberal benches, which are now more vacant than usual. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) came in and then disappeared, and then the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) came in, and he also disappeared. I thought that we were going to have an account of the policy which the Liberal Party has put forward on several occasions in the House. About a year ago we had a disavowal by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) of any attachment to a tariff policy. He said that he would like to get away from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) taxed him on this point. Although the Liberal Party yesterday issued some form of statement on agricultural policy, I could not find any mention of horticulture in it, nor mention of any protection to be provided under the Liberal Party's scheme. I think, therefore, that we on this side of the House have the distinction that we believe in the tariff method of supporting the home horticultural industry, and I hope, as I say, that we shall stick by it.

Mr. Pearl: What about the Common Market?

Mr. Bullard: The Common Market has also been mentioned this morning. It is a fact that, very fortunately, I think, we did not get as far as negotiating about tariffs for horticulture in the Common Market, but I should certainly have been a very long time in supporting entering the Common Market unless there were some good countervailing measures to protect our home industry.
My final point is with regard to marketing. Of course, other hon. Members have referred to this. It is a matter of great importance, although I think it would be a big mistake to suppose that herein lies the whole future of the horticultural industry. So much produce does not go on to the market at all. It goes, as I say, direct to the places of consumption, be it the hotel, school or hospital, and in many other directions. It is a great mistake to suppose that everything can be saved by marketing methods, although they are very important. It is also a great mistake to say that all the home produce is badly marketed and badly packed. It is not. There has been a vast improvement in these methods, and we want to see that improvement continued.
I still lament the end of the Horticultural Marketing Council. I just wonder whether we did enough to keep that body in being. I know that the Government were faced with a hostile vote all round against it and unwillingness by growers to co-operate in the financial arrangements, but I still think that here was the germ for co-operative effort on all sides in horticultural marketing. I hope that my right hon. Friend, or my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying to the debate, will indicate that now that the Horticultural Marketing Council has gone, or is about to go, the marketing organisation within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be greatly strengthened.
There is a job of research and development to be done here, which is of great importance, and I believe, as applied to markets as well as to growers, that the principle of giving advice, guidance and help, coupled sometimes with a little grant aid, such as we have for growers under the Horticulture Act, is the best way of setting about the matter. I am not at all sure that there is an organisation within the Ministry itself Which is of sufficient power and strength to carry out the necessary research projects and the development work. I hope, therefore, that we shall have some indication that this can be speeded up and strengthened, for that seems to be the hope now that the Horticultural Marketing Council has gone.
I wish to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the work which their Ministry has done under the Horticulture Act in the matter of development works. We should be very wrong, I think, to overlook the assistance given to schemes on holdings and for the improvement of glasshouses, and so on, under that Act. It is a very good thing indeed. I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend will look at the points about the reorganisation of the arrangements for giving grant aid for the provision of new heating equipment in old glasshouses. This is a point upon which I have had some correspondence with my right hon. Friend, and I think that other hon. Members have, too.
It is a fact that if one provides new heating apparatus in an old glasshouse one can have a grant, but if in the process of doing that one reorganises the shape and construction of the glasshouse, then no grant is available because it is plain that it is a new glasshouse, and new glasshouses do not qualify for grants. It seems a great pity that when a grower wants to reorganise a heating system and spends a lot of money on bringing it up to date, if he touches the structure of the glasshouse he loses the grant. Though this is only a small matter, I hope that my right hon. Friend will give it his attention.

1.6 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I wish to join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) on introducing this subject for debate today. I think it is a pity that by the process of the Ballot my hon. Friend has had to take the first opportunity which he had of raising the subject, because it might have been more satisfactory could we have waited another six weeks or two months before having this debate so that my right hon. Friend could have had time to complete his study of the matter and give us a full report on what is happening and what his plan for the future of the horticultural industry is.
I do not want to make a long speech. A good deal of the ground has been covered extraordinarily well already, and by this stage in a debate much of what one has to say is clearly repetitive. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) and others have spoken

about tariff protection. In general, I do not like tariffs as a way of protecting an industry, but I feel that in the case of the horticultural industry there are very special circumstances which make this form of protection both necessary and desirable.
I hope that we shall try to organise this form of protection so that it gives encouragement to efficiency and new investment without, at the same time, giving protection to the inefficient growers. I feel that at the moment we have the level of tariffs about right, although I would not expect it to stay at this level for ever. I feel, therefore, that we have now to look quickly to other methods so that at a future time the industry can, perhaps, stand more competition provided that it is fair competition.
Before coming to the two points which I want to raise, I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn in saying a few words about the processing, canning and quick-freezing industry. I declare an interest at once in that I grow nearly 100 acres of peas for quick freezing and canning. One has noticed in the last year or so that the relationship between the growers and the processors has got worse. This is an unsatisfactory position. The processors have invested a vast amount of money in capital equipment, and the growers have learned the "know haw" very well of how to produce the crops. In my part of the world, and in East Anglia as a whole, they have been of great value to the whole area, not only to horticultural canning but in employing labour in the towns and factories and on the land as well. It would be a tragedy if the relationship between the two sides of this new industry were to get worse at this stage. I hope that my right hon. Friend will keep an eye on the situation and give what help he can, if it is necessary, because this is a very important part of the economy of East Anglia.
The horticultural industry has two outstanding problems which are closely related. The first arises from the demand for a graded product resulting from changes in consumer demand brought about by supermarkets and the like. The second is the problem of transport and marketing requirements in a congested and overcrowded island. This problem has become more marked of recent times.


The two problems may seem to be separate, but I think that there is a connection, and I Shall endeavour to show it.
I believe that we must go in for a comprehensive reconstruction of the markets of the country in the next few years. I consider that ten markets are necessary. I do not regard ten as a definite figure, but I think it is about right. I should like to see ten markets reconstructed over the next ten years, and the main consideration should be to establish free movement of traffic in and out of the market and the use of mechanical devices within the market.
We do not require too many markets in order that standard grades may be enforced. That may be done only by not having too many markets and ensuring that the whole machinery of enforcement works. In contradiction to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, I support the introduction of compulsory grades and standards for a certain number of crops. I cannot visualise the industry tackling this problem by itself, because had horticulturists wished to do so they would have tackled it before now. It is a job which the Government have to do and one which I do not consider will make the Government unpopular. In a short time it would have proved its advantage to the industry. We might start with educational grades in a manner similar to that adopted in respect of pig production, and after a few years the grades could become compulsory.
It would be necessary to set up a statutory authority to advise the Government on the location of markets and to enforce standards. There are other duties which it could perform in relation to standardised containers, pallets and so on. A lot of the work of the former Horticulture Marketing Council could be done by such an authority. Since the winding up of the Council there has appeared some first-class literature which is far better than one anticipated could be produced. In the last six weeks three extraordinarily good technical and economic reports have been produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The more one sees of this the more certain one becomes that there is a place for somebody of this sort in the industry.
I think that there is a future for the horticultural industry. But it must be

recognised by the producers that the market must be studied far more than has been the case so far. At present the industry is facing a tough time because of the weather. In the next two or three months my right hon. Friend proposes to give the Government's plans for the industry and the fact that we are paying all this attention to the industry and that we are debating its problems today is a good sign. We wish the industry well.

1.14 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I support a great deal of what has just been said by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). Although there have been suggestions by some hon. Members that there are pockets of gloom and difficulty for the industry in their areas, I think it would be wrong for us to allow the impression to be given that all is not right with the industry. We are all aware that there are grave anxieties facing horticulturists in certain parts of the country. But we should be less than fair if we did not give credit to those who seem to be managing fairly well in the present circumstances. I am sure that all hon. Members would be able to think of certain growers who have triumphed over the difficulties with which they have been confronted. I cannot refrain from referring to the way in which the Land Settlement Association has enabled people working on small acreages to do extremely well, and if people can produce tomatoes or other crops with that assistance on a small acreage at competitive prices we must at least admit that there are certain parts of the industry with a satisfactory history.
We must not overlook the fact that in this country the industry enjoys certain advantages which are not apparent in respect of horticulture in other parts of the world. One of those things is our large population situated not far from the places where the crops are growing. Our population is about five times that of Holland, which is something worth bearing in mind. Recently I spoke to a grower who said he had visited a series of clock auctions and that he had to go to three of them to find fruit equal to the output of his own total production. It is necessary that credit should be given for such things.
We must not overlook the facts that growers have had a real cause for anxiety for a long period. I should like to pay tribute to the way in which they have tackled the difficulties and problems caused by the recent bad weather. In addition, they have been worrying about what might or might not have happened had we joined the Common Market, and now that we are not to do so they are anxious about the present climate of opinion regarding tariffs, which have been their main support. They have noted the circumstances developing in different parts of Europe, and indeed in the world, and they are worried about the way in which our arrangements work for protecting them against the dumping of surplus produce. So I think it would be right to appreciate that our horticulturists have real grounds for anxiety.
On the other hand, we should not believe that all they have to do is to say that their anxieties have been created entirely by the Government. From recent events one thing seems clear, that certain schemes have been put up for the benefit of the industry such as the Horticultural Market Council, to which reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. Had the industry wished to support this scheme it would, in the opinion of many people, have provided a valuable contribution to the welfare of the industry. But after the vote was taken it was clear that the industry did not want the scheme, and we therefore find ourselves confronted with a situation which was put clearly in the last issue of the Grower. After referring to methods which might be adopted by this or another Government, or by the National Farmers' Union, the Grower posed the question: "Do we really want them to?" I wish to consider some of the problems which we have been discussing today in the light of that question posed by the Grower.
Hon. Members have referred to the problems of marketing. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft thought that 10 markets would be adequate. He will be aware that there are more than 50 local authorities which have markets in which horticultural produce is dealt with in one way or another and already about half of those authorities have schemes for modernising their markets. Looking at that situation from the point of view of the question posed by the Grower, we

might ask, do we believe that the local authorities or the industry will find a way to solve that problem without assistance from the Government? There can be no doubt that sooner or later my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will have to do something about that.
I was a member of the Standing Committee on what is now the Slaughterhouses Act and I see two hon. Members opposite whose faces I saw during those proceedings. They will have clear memories of our discussions at that time. It seems to me that, just as with the slaughterhouses, if we are to have this problem of markets dealt with the Minister will have to act.
Apart from the question of siting, my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft mentioned mechanical handling. I recently had the good fortune to see some of the arrangements made in New Zealand for dealing with horticultural produce. One of the most dramatic things about them is the way in which everything is handled mechanically. I was told that once the products consigned to the United Kingdom had left the farm, 95 per cent. of any damage occurred after the ship arrived at this end of the journey.
The second point to which hon. Members have referred is marketing. There is no doubt that at present we are being confronted with fewer and fewer buyers. One finds that in the produce of western Canada, where exactly the same thing was happening half a century or more ago, the small seller found himself unable to compete with the big buyer. This seems to be the situation in some parts of our horticultural industry today.
There are examples in the industry of strong marketing groups which are doing exceedingly well, and it may well be that the industry by following the good example set by those groups will be able to deal with this problem itself without assistance from the Ministry. But if this problem is to be tackled adequately the groups must have some control of the crops grown, the growing plans and the arrangements for producing what is required at the right time. I should like to see the matter taken a step further and an aggressive horticultural industry looking for markets abroad. There are


plenty of reasons why I believe that there are things which could well find good markets abroad.
Many of our horticultural products are of a quality well above that which is available in many other countries. If we are to have exports we must have strong marketing groups. It is something which will have to come. In considering marketing in the context of whether it can be done by the industry, I repeat that there is a Chance that, following the example of the existing strong groups, this is something the industry might be able to do without assistance from the Government.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft that it would be necessary for the Government to offer some assistance with grading. The importance of grading is not only that the grades are available, so that if somebody wants a particular grade he knows what he will get, but that once grades have been established, products of a certain grade can be sent to places where there is a demand for that grade. One of the things which surprised me in New Zealand was that, according to experience there, once grades are properly defined the price the grower gets for Grade III is not all that different from the price he obtains for Grade I, simply because the board knows where to sell the different grades. I support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) about a marketing division in the Ministry. It is something which my right hon. Friend might well consider in the context of developments in the coming months.
The fourth question that arises is that of a standard container. I do not think it matters very much what size it is as long as it is a standard size. This would enable those who produce these to produce them more cheaply. Secondly, it would enable the containers to be fitted into standard pallets and that would mean the possibility of mechanised handling which would be of great advantage to everybody. I cannot see a standard container being produced as a result of an upsurge from the industry, so that this is something which the Government should consider.
The next thing which somehow the industry must arrange is publicity, and if

there is to be publicity there must be market research. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft referred to three reports from the Horticultural Marketing Council. I think that I have a range of twelve reports in all. I do not know whether my hon. Friend received the others.

Mr. Prior: I merely referred to the last three issued.

Mr. Godman Irvine: There are excellent reports. In particular two of the last three dealt with the industry from the housewife's point of view. We hear constantly from the housewife a complaint that a lettuce, for example, is sold at a certain price in the wholesale market but in her own shop it costs a great deal more. If there is no proper grading it is not possible to make a comparison between the lettuce in the shop and the price paid for a lettuce in the market. Somebody must do this job for the industry and it may well be that publicity can be worked out through the National Farmers' Union or in some other way. It certainly seems to be an essential development at some stage.
A number of hon. Members have dealt with import control. All I need say is that this is something which cannot be dealt with by the industry itself. In considering the six points which I have picked out as most important for the industry the inevitable conclusion which I arrive at is that four of them at least cannot be tackled by the industry itself. Therefore, I should have thought that it was essential that my right hon. Friend should look at these points on behalf of the industry.
Finally I should like to refer to one or two other smaller points. Reference has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) to the duty on petrol. I add my support to the point he made and ask my right hon. Friend to lend his support in persuading the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this matter again. Another question of taxation which is having quite an effect on the fruit-growing industry is the 15 per cent. tax on soft drinks. This undoubtedly has had an influence on the grower of blackcurrants, apples and other fruit. There is also the example of the cider manufacturer in my constituency who has been severely hit by another tax which was introduced some years ago by


the Chancellor. I assure my right hon. Friend that a tax of this kind has had an effect on the amount of fruit used. On the subject of taxation, I would also ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether it would not be possible for him to lend his weight in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a look at the possibility of averaging the profits of the horticultural industry over a period of years. In a year particularly such as this, when we have had such extremely difficult weather, I feel that there is no need to urge on my right hon. Friend the importance of this factor to the industry.
I owe an apology to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn, as I was about to offer my support for his observations on the difficulties of getting heating appliances under the horticultural improvement scheme. I, too, have had correspondence with the Minister on a similar point. In my case the house was moved on advice from the Agricultural Advisory Service because it was blown down. It was moved to a place which was not only nearer to the source of heat, but there were numerous other advantages. For one thing, it was less likely to be blown down again on the new site.
My right hon. Friend has explained the difficulties. The regulations say that this assistance can only apply to a nursery that was in position on the date when the regulations were introduced. Surely, there is some way in which a little difficulty like that can be overcome. We offer our support to my right hon. Friend in any steps which he would like to take to this end, and I hope that he will have another look at the problem.
I should, finally, like to refer to the question of fuel. In the case to which I have just been referring the grower has put in modern coal-burning machinery. Growers who have installed such machinery are now having another look at the situation in the light of a reduction in the tax on oil. Growers who have been negotiating with the National Coal Board on this problem of fuel for the horticultural industry have gained the impression that it is an outlet in which the Coal Board is not particularly interested. If that should be the case, and the growers find that for other reasons it would be preferable to turn

over to oil, I am not sure that that would be in the national interest.
Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this matter and to see whether there is no way in which people can be encouraged to use coal as much as oil. In particular, if he can do nothing else, I should like him to consider the possibility of encouraging the National Coal Board to let growers have coal during the summer months at an even cheaper rate than operates at the moment.

1.33 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I should like to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) about the National Coal Board. I am sure that if this point were put to the Coal Board there would be a sympathetic response. I have an interest in this matter, in the sense that there is some coal in my constituency, and the local division of the Coal Board is always anxious to encourage the use of coal where there is danger of oil competition. I am sure that if this point could be put to the industry it would be useful because it is in the national interest that we should use coal where possible for heating in horticulture.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) on raising this subject today. I am only sorry that it is being discussed on a Friday afternoon when very few Members participate in debates of this kind. Obviously, those who have participated are Members who, irrespective of party, are concerned about the future of horticulture. Some interesting points have been put to the Minister, and I trust that we shall have satisfactory replies. We have had very little party controversy. I thought the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) was going to inject some controversy into our debate, but I think we all realise that there are many different views on this subject.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) that Lord Stonham, who produced a policy for horticulture in the Grower on 16th February, an article which has aroused controversy, writes only for himself. He must be held personally responsible for those views. I can say no more. I


think that the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) had quite a different approach from that of the hon. Members for Maidstone and Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) when he argued his case for the necessity for Government action, the need for streamlining our marketing system, and the creation of planned markets in this country. I thought that the hon. Member for Lowestoft was nearer to Lord Stonham's view than any other speaker in this debate. He envisaged some sort of statutory body which would enforce decisions. All I would say about Lord Stonham is that it is a good thing to have debate and argument about these policies.
I know that the Government have not made up their mind. But when we are chided about policy, I say that it is for the Government to produce a policy. It is for the Government to respond to the criticisms that have been made, and to indicate where they are going. We can argue about policy, and we shall do so on the hustings, no doubt very soon, but in this House it is for the Minister and the Government to respond to the points which have been submitted by hon. Members.

Mr. Bullard: May I get the point about this plan cleared up? Is it not a fact that this plan was put forward on behalf of the British Socialist Agricultural Society, of which Lord Stonham is chairman? He mentioned that society in his article. The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) told us that he was a member. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) is a member, and, for all I know, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) is also a member. Is this article not put forward on behalf of that society?

Mr. Peart: I believe that Lord Stonham is in error. He is putting forward those views on his own behalf. Indeed, my hon. Friend is a member of that society and I am vice-president. These are entirely Lord Stonham's own individual views. Therefore, what appeared in that article in the Grower is his responsibility and no one else's.

Mr. Harold Davies: It is for discussion.

Mr. Peart: Yes, it is for discussion. He has injected controversy and discus-

sion, and that is all to the good. I congratulate the Grower on publishing the article. The more discussion we have about marketing in horticulture the better. I should have thought that every hon. Member in the Chamber today would welcome the discussion that this article has aroused.
There has been controversy in the industry. I have had correspondence, as other hon. Members must have had, and indeed many growers and others connected with the industry have already made their views known. There is a grand debate going on within the industry, and this is to the good. If we can get final agreement in the industry and if we can get the Ministry to give its views, no doubt we may be able to achieve some beneficial results. But I make no complaint of my colleague in another place writing an article, though it must be understood that he is certainly speaking only for himself.
On 13th December we had a debate on horticulture when we discussed the orders confirming the dissolution of the Horticultural Marketing Council. I believe the Minister was in Brussels at the time, but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied to the debate. I will not repeat too much of what I said then. I will indicate broadly my arguments and I will illustrate some points of emphasis and say what I think should be done in the industry, without going into too much detail.
I hope the Minister will be able to give us some indication of Government policy, the lines on which they are thinking, the form of marketing they have in mind, whether they favour a resurrected Horticultural Marketing Council with executive powers, whether they favour some new form of statutory authority or whether they are going to respond to the demand of the National Farmers' Union which has promoted the idea of a development council under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947.
What do the Government intend to do? If the Minister says that he cannot tell us today, that he wants further consultations and further information, I shall understand. I assume that this is why he set up a departmental committee to examine the provincial wholesale markets. Has the committee reported?


I know that the Minister loves committees. We had one in the fishing industry, and committees are very useful. There was a committee of officials, the "three wise men", to investigate our ports.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): That was an entirely different matter.

Mr. Peart: It was the fishing industry, but we were dealing with marketing in the fishing industry. I am surprised that the Minister is getting touchy and forgetting things. I am paying him a tribute.
I take it that the committee which is investigating horticulture is expected to make a practical report to the Minister, and I want to know when he is likely to receive it and when we shall have a statement. That is all. There is nothing wrong in that. The matter is urgent. The hon. Member for Maidstone regards it as urgent; he did not put his Motion down because he wished to express some pious platitudes. He is seriously concerned. Many hon. Members accept what I say when I emphasise that this is no time for complacency.
I am not saying that all is wrong with the industry. Too many people play it down, as hon. Members have said today. Our British growers are the best in the world, and some of our produce is unbeatable. Whether we argue about the Common Market, going into Europe, or competition from Europe, we know that we have in this country some of the very finest men from a technical point of view.
The industry has great achievements to its credit already. I have a list here of the main horticultural marketing cooperatives in England. It shows how co-operation has started within the industry itself. There is East Sussex Growers Ltd., which has a membership of 1,049. Its sales of horticultural produce total approximately £300,000 worth a year.

Mr. Godman Irvine: I much appreciate the tribute which the hon. Gentleman pays to the society of which I am a member.

Mr. Peart: I am being generous and showing no party prejudice. I am being impartial here, but it is a co-operative

and it is doing very well. There is the Gloucestershire Marketing Society. So I could go on. These are co-operatives organised under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893. There is a very fine one in Norfolk. We have had two speeches today from that part of the country, one from Norfolk and one from Suffolk. The Norfolk Fruit Growers Ltd. of Wroxham has a membership of 607, and its annual sales of horticultural produce, excluding main crop potatoes, exceed £500,000 worth. These examples can be repeated in many parts of the country.
Although we must not be complacent, we should not be too pessimistic. However, as a result of the dissolution of the Horticultural Marketing Council there is, as we on this side have said time and again, an urgent need for action. I shall not quote my own speech, but I remind the Minister that we gave him a warning in December last when we discussed the unfortunate demise of the H.M.C. When the Horticultural Act, 1960, was before the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) stressed that the organisation ought to be much stronger. It had no executive powers and was not involved in import control. It had difficulties from the beginning.
I am sorry that the industry has not responded. There is a responsibility on both producers and those on the retail and wholesale side, but there is responsibility on the Government, too. What is to fill the vacuum? Mr. Bowerman, the chairman of the H.M.C. has asked precisely this question. In November last, at Wisbech, when he set forth his views, he said:
The industry needs, above all, two things: a `parliament' representative of all engaged in the many sides of our industry, and resources for research, inquiry, advice education and all forms of publicity. It could have had both through a permanent Council".
He went on to say:
I am sure that ultimately wiser councils will prevail, and a great majority of the industry will see that a body very similar to the Council—that is, a deliberate body armed with executive powers and adequate resources—is needed.
Many hon. Members have said this. Have the views of the chairman of the H.M.C. received a sympathetic response? What is in the Minister's mind? This is precisely what the hon. Member for


Lowestoft was asking. Although he was dealing more specifically with the organisation on markets, he was thinking of a statutory authority. This is precisely why we have had the argument in the Grower. There is a need for a declaration of policy from the Government. Although the Minister may say that he cannot at this stage, until he has further information, inform the House, there is urgency about it.
We could argue about some of the points which have been raised in regard to standardisation, better packaging, the use of mechanical aids in markets—we all accept these things—but who is to do it? This is one of the fundamental aspects of marketing. We are trying to cut down the costs of distribution between the producer and, in the end, the consumer. There are two major partners, the producer and the consumer. We recognise that, in between, the salesman must operate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leek said, there are all sorts of people involved in the distribution of flowers, and we pay a tribute to the many people engaged in the trade, from the florist's shop right down to the flower seller on the street corner. Many people have a say in the industry but, in the end, we are trying to reduce the costs of distribution and we wish, therefore, to improve our marketing system.
I turn now to the wholesale markets. There is an investigation going on, but we are lagging behind. There has been the excellent report from Agriculture House of the N.F.U. horticulture team which visited certain European markets to study developments in the E.E.C. We know what has been done in France under the Monnet plan. We know what is happening in Belgium, Germany and Holland. I should like there to be, in addition to a committee investigating provincial markets in this country, an official committee investigating and reporting back to the Minister on the state of markets in Europe.
The N.F.U. report was a good report, but it was rather limited. I share the view of the hon. Member for Maidstone, that we can be mesmerised by the Dutch system. We tend to assume that it is the best and that the clock auction working in the Dutch pattern is the line ahead. It may be that in France the conditions are nearer to ours, and I am

informed by some knowledgeable people in the industry that the problems of 'horticulturists in West Germany are very similar to ours. Perhaps we could see how the clock auction is operating in West Germany and how some of their markets are developing. It would be a good thing if the Minister had this information and that his experts advising him in the Ministry should be well aware of what is happening abroad.
I recognise that the industry must do something about it. This has always been the philosophy of the Minister. He has said that marketing is for the industry. I do not accept that philosophy. There are times when we must have a marriage between State initiative, public initiative and private initiative. It cannot always be left to the industry. Indeed we have left it to the industry and nothing has been done. The Horticultural Marketing Council has died. It is now for the Government to take action.

Mr. Soames: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell me what executive powers he thinks that a body taking the place of the Horticultural Marketing Council needs, and executive powers to do what?

Mr. Peart: The Minister has asked me what executive powers a horticultural marketing council should have. I think that it should have powers to make decisions probably on markets. It did not have that. In the main the H.M.C. was concerned with research, publicity, etc. It sought voluntary agreements, but I think that if we have to create some body which will plan markets this body must have certain powers to take action, and powers on standards, which have been mentioned by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Lowestoft argued that we shall probably have to come to a decision that either the Government or some body will have to enforce standards. This is what I mean by executive action—decision which can quickly be taken.
Indeed, this is precisely the view of the chairman. I hope that when the Minister has a consultation with the chairman of the former Horticultural Marketing Council he will address that question to him, because he has argued, as I quoted from his speech, that


this is precisely where we should go at the next stage. In other words, if we are to have some success we cannot just leave it to the industry. If there is some new body created, it must have greater powers than those of the old Horticultural Marketing Council. This is something for the Minister to deal with. If he has consultations with the industry and with those who were with the Horticultural Marketing Council he may agree with my point of view.
Perhaps he takes the view that a body should be created with no executive powers, just an advisory body. It may well be, as one hon. Member has said, that the Ministry itself should be the body to stimulate and make decisions and that its marketing division should be strengthened. I would say that the marketing division of the Ministry in any case should be strengthened, even though we may have to create some new statutory authority.
So I come back to markets. There we must do something. It is agreed by everyone concerned that the marketing arrangements in many of the markets are so higgledy-piggledy that there must be a change. I went recently to Brentford. I was shocked at the state of that market. I know that in Sheffield and Coventry, where there are new markets, the situation is quite different, but generally our markets need to be radically reformed. This should be a matter for some body, some organisation or the Government to regard as a major priority.
I would agree that in many parts of the country the producers should encourage co-operation. I am glad that that was stressed by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. I have read out some of the producer co-operatives which operate in horticulture. We must seek throughout to encourage their activities. We should encourage an organisation of that kind, making direct sale to some of our large super-stores, as in the case of the Land Settlement Association's arrangements to sell tomatoes directly to Marks and Spencers'. With such long-term agreements producers can plan ahead. This is to the good. I say to the Minister that I agree with some hon. Members that we cannot have a rigid pattern. We can have public drive and public initiative but, of course, the pattern will

vary. The industry, quite rightly, is varied. Therefore, any pattern of marketing and indeed any pattern of co-operation within the industry must be of a varied nature.
That is why I come back to what people have been saying about the article in the Grower, which created controversy. If it arouses controversy and makes people think and tolerant of the views of many people who have practical experience but who are in conflict, it will be to the good of the industry. In other words, the pattern that will emerge cannot be put into a blue-print, even though the Liberal Party has published its policy this week. It cannot be put into a cut-and-dried programme. That is why I am not saying to the Minister that I want him to produce in detail his plan for horticulture today. I merely want him to indicate the general lines along which he is thinking. I want him to respond to many of the important points that we have to consider.
Credit is a real issue. I know that credit is important and the attitude of the banks. The tragedy here is that one has to think always of collateral security. Perhaps something new will have to be introduced. It is a matter which should be thought out by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. Cheap credit is important. One hon. Member said that it has many dangers, but it was also pointed out that dear credit can be a danger. It can be restrictive. We have to examine what is happening in other countries. I have here a survey which was given to me of the credit facilities in Holland, France, Italy and Germany. They are facilities which are much better for their growers than those which we have for the growers. Generally there they think in terms not only of marketing but of helping the producer at the production point. One could give figures and go into details but we forget that the State in the Common Market countries—I refer to these countries as Common Market countries because in the main they will be our main competitors in horticulture—interferes considerably. I remember doing a survey for the Council of Europe quite a long time ago in Southern Italy. In that part of Italy the small producers were helped considerably by the State. When we talk about the need to encourage competition, we


should always remember that our competitors are often considerably helped by the State. I say that our producers should have cheap credit facilities and all the help possible under the Horticultural Improvement Scheme.
Our growers must invest considerable sums of money. A grower who came to see me gave me his own experience of improving his six-acre holding, which mainly deals with cucumbers. In order to put in oil heating, he had to spend £30,000. Of course, he got a grant of £10,000, but he had to provide £20,000. He will benefit in the end because fuel costs will be reduced considerably each year. However, a great risk is involved and it is increased if marketing arrangements are bad.
I want the Minister to make a statement about the Government's approach to import control. I believe in import control. I have always accepted the tariff. I tried to clear that matter up in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. There must be some form of protection. At a later stage, through better marketing arrangements, we may be able to do without it, but at present, because of our climate, and other factors, our producers need protection at certain times of the year, and this is essential. I do not regard this as something hostile to the consumer. In the end, the provision of good fresh vegetables from our own home market is of benefit to the housewife. I would hate to see home production destroyed by a flow of cheap food from the Continent which may be subsidised deliberately by a foreign Government.
I know that I have been attacked on import control. Newspapers like the Economist do not like it. I am prepared to be attacked. I believe that our growers should have adequate protection. Import control is important. This is a matter which we on this side have always pressed. If we had gone into the Common Market, with the adoption of common standards and the end of the tariffs, there was a danger that we would have had to face the full blast of competition. I know that our entry was to be phased, but there were fears in this respect. However, that is history now. But we still have to live with Europe. Produce will come from the Common

Market countries, and we will welcome it, but it must come here without harming home production and consumer interests.
I hope that the Minister will respond objectively to the Motion and to some of the points which have been raised and to some of the broad criticisms that I have made. All of us, from whatever side of the House we come—I am sorry that Liberal Members have not spoken; they are not here—have tried to express our concern for the industry and our desire to build up an industry which, after all, produces approximately 10 per cent. of home production at the farm gate

2.4 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): As has been said on both sides of the House, we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) for giving us the opportunity to have a debate on horticulture. We do not have the opportunity to discuss horticulture very often and I know that hon. Members will agree when I say that the House has made good use of this one. I hope to show in my speech that the Government accept the Motion and the three policy objectives contained in it.

Mr. Peart: Why did not the Government initiate it?

Mr. Soames: Because this is private Members' time when private Members are able to put down Motions, and it is for the Government to decide whether they can accept them.
The debate, naturally, has turned to a large extent on the problems which face the industry. One of them is that it is so much at the mercy of the weather. The last two months have faced many growers with appalling conditions, and many of them face increased costs and considerable losses. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) said, in some parts of the country—and, of course, he was referring particularly to Cornwall—whole crops have been lost in this bitter spell, which has meant serious losses to individuals. This is but a part of the continuous challenge to the enterprise and courage of those who choose to make this their livelihood, and we cannot, much as we may sympathise, talk in terms of


paying compensation to counter the effects of bad weather on horticulture or agriculture. This is one of the risks inherent in the industry, and it is accepted as such by the people in it. We are discussing here the health of an industry which is in many respects buoyant, dynamic and progressive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone pointed out.
What, then, is the state of the horticultural industry today? The real test would be a measurement of trends in net income over the last decade. Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to do this. We cannot obtain reliable net income statistics for the horticultural industry, but we have figures for gross income. These show that, taking the average of the three years 1950–52 and comparing it with the average for the years 1960–62, gross income rose from £105 million to £160 million.
These figures take no account of any increases in costs, but equally on the credit side they take no account of the factor of increasing efficiency within the industry. Moreover, they conceal changes within the structure of horticulture, for the fortunes of the different sectors of the industry have varied considerably. But they are the best guide that we have to the progress of the industry as a whole over the last decade, and they surely do nothing to support the idea that horticulture is in any way a declining industry. For this, all credit is due to the industry itself, but I think that the Government can also claim that they have played an important part, and I wish to say a word or two about what the Government have done and are doing to assist the industry.
First, there are the six research stations under the aegis of the Agricultural Research Council and the seven horticultural experimental stations run by the National Agricultural Advisory Service to test the results of research in practice, and these have contributed much to the industry. I look to the new Advisory Council that we have just set up to provide genuinely independent criticism of the research and experimental programme, the way in which it is done and the way in which the findings are put out to the growers. For the growers, of course, the services of horticultural

advisory officers are always freely available.
Then there is the grant aid which we offer under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, to which reference has been made by a number of hon. Members. This was brought in in 1960, and its main object is to help growers and the marketing co-operatives to install the equipment which they need the better to place their produce on the market and at the most appropriate time. Over 4,000 projects submitted by growers, landlords or horticultural marketing co-operatives have already been approved, and these add up to about £6 million of which the Government will be paying £2 million. I am glad to tell the House that there is no sign of slackening in the rate at which applications continue to flow in. Indeed, the amount paid in grant in January this year was the highest yet recorded for any one month.
There can, of course, be room for argument about the scope of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone referred to the grubbing up of orchards and a number of hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Rye, referred to the extension of the scheme to include heating equipment. As to orchards, I take the point made by my hon. Friend that there is a good deal more to be done. We are already considering how we may be able to give more help.
As to the main benefits of the scheme, applications have so far been approved for packing sheds and buildings for gas and cold storage plant costing nearly £1¾ million, which represents a substantial investment by fruit growers. Over £1 million worth of work is represented by nearly 1,000 applications for improved heating equipment in glasshouses and rhubarb and mushroom sheds. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) referred to this matter, which is always a difficult one.
This is primarily a grant to encourage better marketing. Improved heating of greenhouses can bring on a crop that much earlier. This affects timing on the market. It is a direction in which marketing and production join. There is always room for argument about whether we should not go a little more one way or another. We try to operate


the scheme in the spirit in which Parliament wished it to be done—that is, principally financial help towards better marketing. We have a responsibility not to tip over too far into the production side, for this was not what Parliament had in mind when authorising the scheme. It is not always easy to differentiate and draw the line, but we do our best. Plant and machinery for grading and packing represents further expenditure of over £400,000. The House will, therefore, see that considerable advantage is being taken of the scheme.
It has for long been our policy to encourage the development of cooperation among growers, particularly in the context of marketing, because we believe that this can be of great value to the industry. Encouragement it must be, because compulsory co-operation is in itself a contradiction in terms. We make grants to the central bodies promoting cooperation, and under the Horticulture Act we make grants towards expenditure incurred by those bodies in setting up and improving the efficiency of horticultural marketing co-operatives. With the help of these grants, five new co-operatives have already been floated, two more are on the point of being launched and four others are, as it were, on the slipway in various stages of construction. We all know of examples of highly successful co-operatives, and this is a trend which we will surely see continuing within the industry.
Perhaps it would not be out of place to mention an event which marks the next stage in the development of cooperation by a number of growers' marketing organisations. In one instance which I have in mind, a number of men in the South and East have got together and formed Home-Grown Fruits, Ltd., grading their fruit to a common standard and marketing it under a common brand name. I commend the example of that group of people, who have sunk their individual identities to form a selling organisation big enough to do business on equal terms with their largest customers. I have permission to say that last season they handled 2¼ million 30 lb. packs of fruit and that this year they will be handling over 3 million.
One sphere in which we would have liked to see closer and more active co-

operation is in matters of common concern to growers, wholesalers and retailers —the three together. The opportunity for this was offered by the Government in the Horticultural Marketing Council, which we have maintained for three years. We did this to give a fair opportunity to all sides of the industry to make up their minds on whether to support this form of co-operative enterprise. We did not believe that it was the duty of the Government to take this on as a long-term project. This is the job of the industry.
What we did was a pump-priming operation. We gave the Council sufficient money to remain in being for three years and it was then for the industry, all three sides of it, to decide whether they wished to continue with it; and if they did so, they would be paying for it. They have made up their minds. I regret the outcome very much. During the debate, hon. Members have referred to some excellent work which the Horticultural Marketing Council has done. As was clear from the beginning, however, the choice of whether to continue was one for the three sides of the industry, and they have made it.
It has been equally clear that the Council was not set up to take over responsibilities from the Government. In the different aspects of marketing, there are some which are the responsibility of the industry and it would not be doing the industry any good to take them away from it. It is not the Government's job. There are other spheres, such as the major markets, for instance, which, obviously, are not for the industry itself. There must be finance from outside by the local authorities, by the central Government or by whoever it may be. I think that the view is widely shared in the House that responsibility for marketing belongs primarily to the industry itself.
Although the Council is no longer to continue, we have seen that the National Farmers' Union—representing the growers—and the wholesalers and the retailers are to set up a joint consultative committee and they hope to be able to do a great deal of the work that was done by the Horticultural Marketing Council. This is the industry taking its own initiative. I am glad, too, that the National Farmers' Union is examining the possibility of setting up a development council. When it has made


up its mind, I have no doubt that it will make representations to us.
For our part, where we can properly help, we shall continue to do so. For example, on this aspect of marketing, grants for research and development in horticultural as well as agricultural marketing are available under the Market Development Scheme. It might interest the House to know that, so far, assistance has been given towards the building of the experimental clock auction at Cheltenham, to which a number of hon. Members have referred, to an investigation into the marketing of flowers, to the promotion of voluntary grading of tomatoes and cucumbers and also to the production of a film aimed at improving the handling of fruit.
The clock auction will be getting support from the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, and from the Market Development Scheme and under the Horticulture Act. The total Government support of this experiment will amount to about £25,000 out of a total cost of £100,000. I am sure that this is the right way to proceed with the experiment on this, which I think also came out in the debate as being the view of most hon. Members. We certainly would not want to rush in putting up clock auctions and saying this should be the system for the selling of our produce. We must move slowly with this and see to what extent it can be of benefit in the future. We believe that this experiment was one worthy of Government support, and, as the House will see, we have acted accordingly.
I now turn to the redevelopment of wholesale markets. As the Runciman Committee rightly said, the state of the wholesale horticultural markets in this country lies at the root of the industry's marketing problems. It is clearly a first prerequisite of an efficient marketing system for horticultural produce that the physical facilities in the markets should be efficient and up to date.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Covent Garden Market, which is very much a special case. It was because of the national functions and the national importance of Covent Garden that we felt that it was right for the Government themselves to take direct action over the future management of the market. We therefore set up the Covent Garden

Market Authority, and as a result of its work I have no doubt that we shall see this, which is the focal and preeminent horticultural market in this country, effectively reorganised and equipped. It is expecting to receive any day a report which it has commissioned from a marketing consultative business on advice as to where the market should he placed.
The House will remember that in the Bill which went through the House a duty was placed on the Market Authority to rebuild the market, and, it was specified, within the Covent Garden area. When the Bill was going through we said at that time that if after the Authority had given this its full attention it came to the conclusion that it washed to build it outside the Covent Garden area, in some other part, the Government would not lightly stand in the way of its promoting a Private Bill to enable it to build elsewhere.

Mr. George Darling: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Authority, in requesting this investigation into a new site, has laid down that one of the conditions must be that the site has railway facilities?

Mr. Soames: What it specifically laid down I could not go into detail about. I could not answer the hon. Gentleman without notice as to what it specifically asked for in the report. Obviously transport facilities, including railway transport, are a highly important feature of a major market such as this.

Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that when the BM was going through the question of railway sidings in Covent Garden Market was, of course, out of consideration, but that we requested that the market should be placed where there are railway facilities, but that was brushed aside.

Mr. Soames: There are many aspects other than railways—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which also come into the question of a market site within the centre of London. But I do not think we want to enter into an argument now about where the market is to be placed. We must await the opinion of the Authority after taking advice which it has commissioned. Then we will consider its advice.
Most of the 50 other markets throughout the country present much the same problems basically as Covent Garden, only in a much less acute form. They, too, are out of date, too small, unsuitable for modern handling equipment, and wrongly sited in relation to traffic needs. They are, of course, primarily local markets serving their own particular localities, and it is, therefore, right that, like other local services, they should be the responsibility of the local authorities.
But the hard fact is that all too little has been done to remedy their defects and to bring them up to date. I felt that it was necessary to find out precisely what needed to be done and precisely why progress had been so slow, and as a first step in carrying out that survey we have asked local authorities to reply to a questionnaire covering the structure and operation of the existing markets, the authorities' plans for future development, and so on. The majority of their replies have been received and it will not be long before we have the lot, I hope, and when we have considered the results of this survey we will discuss them with all the interests concerned. I know the House would not expect me this afternoon to give any idea of where we might be going from here, for the first thing we have to do is to collect the facts.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) mentioned this at Question Time recently, and there was a hint of it again this afternoon: he poured scorn on the investigation with the inference that we all know the facts. I certainly do not accept this. Do we know in general terms—

Mr. Peart: I did not say that. Indeed, I suggested that this committee or these officials should extend their survey to Europe as well. What I did chide the Minister for was that on previous occasions, often when he has escaped responsibility, he has set up a committee.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Member was saying we have set up a committee but why did we not act. I was saying that we needed more information. He inferred that we had all the facts.

Mr. Peart: No.

Mr. Soames: That was the inference. If the hon. Member does not feel that I am glad to know it, but that was the

impression he was giving me. He thought that if he were running these affairs he could step straight in and reorganise the markets without all this pre-consideration.

Mr. Peart: No. I did not say that.

Mr. Soames: I am only telling him that this was the impression he gave me.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman got the wrong impression.

Mr. J. Wells: Mr. J. Wells rose—

Mr. Harold Davies: This is a private row. Let it go on.

Mr. J. Wells: I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would indicate to the House how far down the scale of wholesale markets his questionnaire has been sent, because if Covent Garden Market is to be removed from the present site, obviously my constituents in Maidstone, and other horticultural areas which normally send produce to Covent Garden by tradition, might find the new Covent Garden Market on the remote side of London from their point of view. Therefore, a relatively humble market like Maidstone Market might be stepped up a bit. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would give some indication of how far down the scale this has gone.

Mr. Soames: It has gone right the way down the range of local authority controlled markets.

Mr. Wells: I thank my right hon. Friend.

Sir P. Agnew: Is the investigation restricted to local authority markets? Secondly, will the results of the investigation be published?

Mr. Soames: This is an investigation into wholesale markets. I must explain to my hon. Friend that the Government seek information to enable them to decide on the future course of action. It is not a question of a report being made by a committee set up like, for instance, the Fleck Committee on the fishing industry. It is not of that order. I am merely reporting to the House the steps which we are taking to glean what we believe is this necessary information.
For instance, we do know in general terms the faults of the existing markets. That is so, but do we know why improvement has been so slow? We do not


know what sort of markets the local authorities ought to be advised to build at this juncture without looking at it on a national basis, or where they should build them—at a time when methods and patterns of distribution are fast changing. There is also the question of the cost of the present markets. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone spoke about the importance of the cost of the markets in relation to the tolls they will have to charge to service the money put up.
We are bringing, as it were, national consideration to bear on these local problems in the hope and confidence that by this means we can most effectively help forward the reorganisation of our wholesale markets in general. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone reminded me a fortnight ago at Question Time, markets are not the whole of marketing. His Motion goes on to call on the Government to encourage standard grades. This is how he has put it—a balanced and proper approach.
About 10 years ago my Department, with the help of all the interested parties of the industry and trade, drew up recommended grades for all the main homegrown fruit and vegetables. We have repeatedly urged growers to make use of these grades in marketing their produce and we have provided a grade assessment service in the main wholesale markets to help this along. Through this service, sample consignments of produce are inspected on a random basis, and the grower is informed how his produce measures up to the grades. It is time to look at these grades again in view of the period which has elapsed since they were introduced. This was one of the tasks which the Horticultural Marketing Council was doing. My Department will now take this over in collaboration with the industry and the trade.
But it is one thing for us to draw up sensible standards and quite another for the industry generally to adopt them. Yet there are powerful natural incentives to growers to do so. The imported produce with which our growers have to compete is nearly all well graded, and our own must measure up to it in this respect if it is to compete effectively. There is also no doubt that well-graded produce generally commands a substantial premium—though not always, I

agree. On the other hand, substandard produce depresses the market generally to the detriment of the industry as a whole. This influence operates all the way along the distributive chain, for good grading removes one of the elements of risk which the buyer of produce otherwise has to take into account in the price he offers, and if our own growers cannot supply well-graded produce, somebody else will.
My hon. Friend calls on the Government to protect the industry from unfair competition from imports. I am glad that he has put action against imports last. There is a very real danger—not in this House so much, but reference has been made to this more than once—of some people concentrating their attention too much on the challenge of imports, to such an extent that we may neglect the very real problems of organisation and technique which face the industry irrespective of foreign competition.
This is very much borne out by the pattern of tariff protection. The horticultural tariffs undoubtedly give a high level of protection to certain sectors of the industry—the glasshouse sector and some parts of the nursery stock sector, for example. But for very many crops this is not so. The tariffs on the great bulk of the outdoor vegetables, for example, are relatively low. Yet imports during the home season are small, and our growers, protected partly by the cost of transporting heavy vegetables to this country from producing areas abroad and partly by their own efficiency, enjoy a virtual monopoly of the domestic market during their own main season. Much the same is true of many of the soft fruits, where perishability takes the place of high transport costs and that and efficiency remain for our own growers as factors of natural protection.
It would be quite wrong to assume that the complete answer to the problems of the horticultural industry lies in the erection of barriers against imports. But here again my hon. Friend has chosen his phrase carefully. He speaks of "unfair competition". This implies the right attitude for any industry to adopt—to seek protection against damage from unfair competition but to welcome fair competition as a stimulus to greater efficiency and competitiveness.


Ours would be a bleak future indeed if ever we lost confidence in our ability as a nation to compete with our rivals; but every industry has a right to all the protection that is consistent with the national interest against damage from competition which is unfair.
Our chosen instrument for this purpose is the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957. The first thing to remember is that the very existence of these powers must exercise a deterrent effect on those who might wish to dump produce on the United Kingdom market. Where a case is proved, appeal can be made and the Act can be brought into force.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) suggested that the Act should be amended. He said that, instead of resting on three criteria—dumping, material injury and national interest—it should be sufficient just to prove dumping, that a consignment had arrived at a cost below what the grower was getting for the produce in his own country. I put it to him that it would be quite wrong for this country, with all its trading interests, to use these antidumping powers unnecessarily or indiscriminately with the risk of retaliation. We must give careful thought before we consider taking these criteria any further.
It has been suggested that the procedures of the Act work too slowly. I entirely accept that with a seasonal product as in horticulture speed is of the essence. But the Board of Trade can certainly act quickly when the need arises for swift action, as the case would inevitably be with horticulture. But do not let us get this matter out of perspective. In the past few years there have been only two anti-dumping applications on horticultural products, and in neither of them could a case for action be made out. On the other hand, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, dumping of foreign produce in the real sense of the term has not bean a major anxiety in past years but could grow into one if surpluses develop on the Continent. I recognise that it was to this future danger that my hon. Friend was referring, and while we are conscious of this danger, I think it would be wrong to suggest that our present

defences, so far as we can see, are inadequate. If the pressure were to grow, we should have to look at the matter again, because the Government—any Government—would be firmly determined to protect the horticultural industry against genuinely and truly unfair competition of this character.
One other type of potentially unfair competition deserves special mention. There are particular difficulties involved in trading with State-trading countries in products which compete with goods produced here. These countries are not always motivated by normal commercial considerations, and tariffs alone may not therefore provide an adequate protection for the home producer against their exports. That is one of the reasons why we maintain quota restrictions on imports of horticultural produce from State-trading countries and why we try where we can to express the quotas for the more sensitive horticultural commodities in terms of quantity rather than of value, thus giving the exporting countries every incentive to seek as high a price as possible.
In considering the horticultural industry, one need not and should not think solely in terms just of producing for home consumption and protection against imports. I am sure, as hon. Members have said, that there are opportunities for exports. We must welcome and applaud the efforts being made by some go-ahead growers to seek and exploit outlets for their produce in Europe, and I can assure hon. Members that any help that can be given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is at their disposal.
I end as I began—by saying that the horticultural industry has problems but is not a problem industry. The Government are alive to these problems and are helping, as far as we think it right, to find a solution. At the same time, many of the problems are for the industry itself, a fact which it fully recognises. We shall continue to play our part and I have every confidence in what the future holds for this industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, believing that an efficient and modern horticultural industry is essential for the supply of high quality fresh and


reasonably priced fruit and vegetables, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to assist the reorganisation of wholesale markets, to encourage standard grades and to re-affirm its determination to protect the industry from unfair competition by imports.

CIVIL DEFENCE

2.41 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I beg to move,
That this House commends the work of the 600,000 men and women engaged in Civil Defence in Great Britain, believes they have a vital and effective part to play in the defence forces of these islands even in a nuclear age, and welcomes the reorganisation of the Civil Defence Corps as leading to a more efficient and balanced force.
I am agreeably surprised that there is a short time available for discussion of this Motion. It has always seemed to me that we have far too infrequent opportunities in this House for discussion about civil defence. I very much wish it were possible to do so far more frequently. The Motion falls into three parts. The first part deals with numbers. It draws attention to the numbers of men and women in Great Britain who are engaged in civil defence.
I pause for a moment at this point to say that it came as a surprise to me, and, I think, subsequently to other hon. Members and to the public, to discover how many persons are engaged in civil defence. I elicited the figures from the Home Secretary on 2nd February. His reply to my Question—in column 87 of HANSARD of that date—was that the total numbers involved were 616,806. This is a substantially larger figure than I think the general public appreciated.
It would be worth while to break these figures down briefly into round figures. In the Civil Defence Corps there are 328,400; in the Industrial Civil Defence Service 181,000; in the Auxiliary Fire Service 16,800; in the National Hospital Service Reserve 73,700; and in the Royal Observer Corps 16,300. Those were the figures as at 31st December last.
As I have said, these are higher figures than was previously realised and, since nothing succeeds like success, it might be appropriate if this debate were to start by our placing on record the substantial numbers of men and women already engaged in what is overwhelmingly voluntary work.
Since we in this country tend to take voluntary work of this nature too much for granted, I have ventured to start my Motion with a commendation which I hope and think will receive the approval of both sides of the House, whatever views may be held on defence matters generally. Here we have a substantial body of men and women who in their spare time, unheralded, unsung and with none of the glamour of a crisis to sustain them, month in and month out carry through their preparation and training for an eventuality which they all profoundly hope will never occur. I think it is appropriate, therefore, that the House should set on record the sense of appreciation we feel for all that these people are doing and have done.
The Motion then goes on to deal with the assertion, or to make the assertion, that the civil defence forces have a vital and effective part to play even in a nuclear age. I venture to draw the attention of the House to the selection of these words, which was not by chance—
'…' vital and effective… even in a nuclear age…
I want to take a few moment in justifying that contention, as I see it, for I well appreciate that it is not without question in the country. There is a view that in the modern nuclear age the holocaust is so appalling, so complete, that any form of civil defence is useless and nothing more than a sham. It is not a view I share. For that view to be tenable, one must proceed on one of two assumptions. The first assumption—and I put it first because we can dispose of it more quickly—is that we either have such a complete system of security or the nuclear stalemate is so absolutely reliable that nuclear war is an absolute impossibility.
Gladly would I like to feel that this was the case. I believe that there are very strong arguments for the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence, but I would not be prepared to go so far as to say that it was a complete and absolute stalemate and that there was no possibility in the modern world of a nuclear outbreak. Certainly I would not feel that that was a sensible basis of policy in the modern world.
The second proposition upon which the assertion can proceed, therefore—and this is the one upon which it does proceed in the minds of many people—is that


modern nuclear war means for these islands absolute, complete and total destruction, that there is no possibility of anything less than that in the appalling event of a nuclear war breaking out.
I shall certainly not get myself into the position of arguing other than that a modern nuclear war would be an event of anything less than unimaginable horror. There is not one hon. Member who does not find it almost impossible to comprehend what might be involved. When we heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House not long ago discussing the Polaris agreement and drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the power of these weapons was 2,500 times greater than the weapon which destroyed Hiroshima, when one tries to get to that magnitude of the potential destruction, it does not lie in the mouth of any hon. Member, whatever his views, to belittle the horror which could be unleashed. Clearly, there is no one who is seeking to do that.
But the argument that necessarily the outbreak of nuclear war must perforce mean the absolute and total destruction of these islands ignores a number of things, including the human factor. Over and over again in the history of weapon development there have been examples of exceedingly powerful weapons, almost perfect systems of attack, falling down under the human error. While I have no doubt at all that in any country which has it in mind that at one stage it might want to rain nuclear weapons on this country there is an efficient targeting system and plan prepared, it still depends in part on the purely human factor.
Furthermore, the argument ignores such factors as the weather. When one is dealing with nuclear fall-out, the weather is an important, though subsidiary, factor. It also ignores the state of mind of a potential enemy, for surely the art of effective use of aggressive force is to use not the maximum but the minimum necessary to attain one's object. If one can secure that unacceptable damage is done to the United Kingdom by appalling destruction in one part of it, there is little incentive for attempting the total and absolute destruction of the entire island.
For all these reasons, therefore, I personally reject the view—I am not questioning the sincerity of those who

hold it—that there can be no possibility whatever other than the total, complete and absolute destruction of these islands in the event of a nuclear war. I personally hold the view that however extensive the damage—and I repeat that I accept without question that the damage would be unimaginably great—there will be two results which are relevant to the debate.
The first is vast casualties. Nowadays, we have moved into the realms of measuring these things by "mega-deaths"—one of the most awful, modern scientific words which illustrates the state of mind into which we have moved in this modern world. There would be enormous casualties and no Government source of any party has ever denied it.
There would also be a severe breakdown of communications and therefore the isolation of substantial parts of the country from the rest. I pick only two eventualities where the work of civil defence as a whole would come into play. It surely must be right to prepare trained men and women to reduce the suffering by burning and by injury. It surely must be right to have trained persons at a time of possible panic as centres for law and order, administration and essential services like water and food.
Anyone who has ever seen any of these training exercises realises that this is the projection which is being put forward. All these must be right and proper precautions to take in the belief that the total and absolute destruction of these islands is at the least contested, if not unlikely, and that if there are to be survivors, granted the appalling casualties, it must be the duty of a modern civilised country to reduce the resultant chaos and suffering to the minimum which could be achieved in a nuclear age. This, though I have had to truncate the argument, is the justification for civil defence training in the modern nuclear age.
The Motion also welcomes the reorganisation of the Civil Defence Corps, one constituent part of the numbers that I gave to the House. I am well aware that this reorganisation of the Corps has not been carried out, and is not being carried out, without some difficulty. Frankly, it is never easy to carry through a reorganisation. We are all conservative in habit, as well as in voting


tendencies, and it is not an easy task, as well I understand, for old-established set-ups, persons or authorities, to come under scrutiny and possible reorganisation to keep up with modern conditions.
I am also aware that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend have been under some criticism, as representing the Home Office, for this reorganisation. However, it has been and is proving effective—it is only part of the way through its journey—and, as I have sought to say in the Motion, is likely to produce and is producing a more effective Corps for duties which one (trusts it will never be called upon to perform, but which it is wise it should be ready to perform in the 1960s.
I have always tried, within the limits of what can be accomplished by a backbench Member, to keep the claims of civil defence in front of the House. I have not always done so wholly and uncritically. I have not expressed criticism in the Motion, but there has been one criticism which I have felt and on which I will touch briefly again. I believe that in times gone by the Government have not taken the British people sufficiently into their confidence. Where we have a modern, educated and intelligent electorate, which is certainly the case in this country, I believe that we can err on the side of not taking such persons into our confidence. I am well aware of the counter-arguments about spreading alarm and dismay, and many of the facts which one should tell the people are of a very horrific nature, but on balance it is better to tell the British people bluntly and plainly what the facts are. They will face them, and we gain the understanding and intelligent backing of a free people, which is of inestimable value and far greater than that of the pressed service of persons who have no power to decide.
I will temper that criticism, which I remember arguing hotly at the civil defence staff group at Sunningdale Park, a visit to which I warmly commend to any hon. Member who has not taken advantage of the opportunity. I detect a decided change in recent months, but without apology I propose to keep pushing my hon. Friend, who has been courteous enough to be here today to reply. I have watched the issue of simply written explanatory booklets, but time does not allow me to go over them. I

notice a decidedly forthcoming attitude on the part of the Home Office to take us increasingly into their confidence in these matters, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that this is a trend in exactly the right direction. I hope that he will permit me to push that view firmly from the back benches.
I end, as I began, with the words of commendation which start the Motion. We frequently pay tribute in the House and elsewhere to the glories of voluntary service in this country, and we mean them. They are not lightly said. The danger of it is that we tend to think that the matter can begin and end there and that such persons neither require nor wish any expression of thanks for what they do. They certainly do not do it for an expression of thanks, but from time to time it is appropriate that the House, with its very special position in the country, should place on record its commendation of these people for what has been done, and that, and in order to draw attention to the problem generally, is the object of my placing the Motion on the Order Paper.

3.3 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) is to be congratulated on having brought this subject before the House because, as he said, we have far too few opportunities of discussing civil defence. It is encouraging to know that there are so many people in the civil defence service at present. It is surprising in a way, because we allowed the wartime civil defence organisation to fade away. I think that that was a big mistake. We have had to start afresh. Nevertheless, we have about 650,000 people, plus, of course, the allied organisations such as the St. John Ambulance Corps, the Red Cross and all other bodies, which I have no doubt will work, as they worked last time, in very close harmony with the official civil defence organisation.
It may be useful at this stage to remember what happened last time and to ask whether there are any lessons to be learned from it. During the last war I could not help feeling that the civil defence organisation was based far too much on local authorities. It is convenient to have it based on local authorities, but to have, as we then had, the town clerk almost automatically becoming civil


defence controller as well as food controller, coal controller and I do not know what else, in addition to his municipal duties, and to have the whole organisation based on the council was in my opinion a mistake. We should try to avoid that in setting up the new organisation.
The other main lesson to be learned is that we should not concentrate too much upon training for nuclear war. The hon. Member tended to concentrate on that aspect, but he will remember that although we envisaged the last war as being a gas war, and spent much time breathing various kinds of poison gases and learning what to do about them, we fortunately never had to apply that knowledge. On the other hand, some of the dangers of the war were never rehearsed by us, the mast important being the unexploded bomb. We never thought of that one, but we had to deal with it, and the civil defence organisation rose to the occasion and dealt with unexploded bombs in a very commendable way.
The only suggestion I want to make is that we should take another look at the training of this new Civil Defence Corps. I should like to see it extended a little, and referred to by some other name, such as the Civil Emergency Corps, or the Civil Emergency Volunteers. I have noticed that whenever there has been a bad railway disaster, a fire, or something of that sort, the civil defence organisation has lent a hand. If we could widen the scope of this body, give it a name such as I have suggested, and encourage the idea that people should be ready to help their neighbours not only in a nuclear war but in any kind of war, or in any national or local disaster, it might have a wider appeal to the public.
Thousands of people would be willing to do something if they felt that there was something useful to do, and that they would not be wasting their time. Thousands of men and women have passed through the Boy Scouts, and other youth organisations, and have learned the idea of service. They are willing to give service, but they do not always want to be told about what would happen if there were a nuclear war. It is a horrible subject. It may happen, and we must be prepared for

it, but if this wider conception were available it might well attract a few more people. That is my main suggestion.
Once again, I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for raising this subject, and I wait with great interest to hear what the Minister has to say about the Government reorganisation of the Corps.

3.8 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) has made three points, and I very much agree with the last one. I hope that my hon. Friend will have some comment to make upon it. There is much in what the hon. Member said. What surprised me was his first point. I know that he speaks with authority in these matters, but I am surprised that he should advocate a wider separation between local authorities and civil defence.
I should have thought that the opposite was required, and that whatever may have been the case in the last war, in any imaginable situation in which civil defence would be needed in the future, the great task would be to see that the ordinary working of local authorities continued to operate in the conditions existing after a nuclear attack. It is absolutely essential that the local authority organisation should be responsible for what goes on, because in an emergency civil defence is merely local authority in action. However much I agree with the hon. Member about his other points, he has not made a case for this separation, and I hope that the Government will not adopt his suggestion. On the contrary, I should have thought that the essential test of an effective Civil Defence organisation was that it should be thoroughly local in character. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to assure us that in the event of a nuclear attack the local authority will be able to continue in operation without having to call on supplies from a central point.
I should like to know whether geiger counters, which will be of critical importance if a situation such as we have been discussing arises, are distributed locally enough. Will the local people be able to get these instruments rapidly in the event of such an emergency? This is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee)


talked about the necessity for the Government to take the public into their confidence. I believe that he is absolutely right, and I am very glad that he said this. I think my hon. Friend will agree that the recent publication, Civil Defence Handbook No. 10, is a real step in the right direction. My only criticism of it is that it tends to sit on the bookstalls and costs 9d. I am wondering whether it would not be a good thing to distribute the booklet rather more widely. I know the balance of argument, the argument that if this were done it would he likely to cause panic. I wonder whether that is right.
What we ought to be aiming at, surely, is a state of affairs in which the whole population of the country has stored in a corner of its mind, not frequently refreshed, certain basic knowledge about what to do in an emergency of this kind. This booklet indicates not only the sort of precautions which could be taken in the event of an emergency arising after due warning but also things which could be done in a matter of an hour.
The critical test, as I say, is that people should know, without having to wait for the information to be given to them, the elementary A, B, C of what can be done. This elementary A, B, C could make all the difference between millions of deaths and none. It would be of as great an advantage as that. I should have thought that there was an overwhelming case for a wider distribution of the booklet, and that it would be a good thing if it were tucked away not only in the minds of people but on a bookshelf in case it were needed. I think that very much more could be done to teach this A. B, C.
My next point is this. Presumably, in the event of a disaster of this character—provided the lessons to which I have referred are understood—people would keep indoors. No doubt they would feel immensely isolated in their individual houses, and they would rely on television and the radio, at least for a time, as their only communication with the outside world. I should like my hon. Friend to tell us whether it is part of civil defence in this country to make quite sure that whatever disruption there may be—disruption, for instance, in electricity supplies—something will be done to keep the services

running. This, to my mind, would make all the difference in a crisis between panic and a reasonable degree of civil defence, very likely only initially, through keeping indoors.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on moving his Motion. It is really an extraordinary feature of the way in which we run our Parliamentary affairs in this country that while on these critical issues we all agree that it is important that information should be disseminated, the House of Commons, which, after all, is supposed to set an example, just does not bother to discuss civil defence. It is only thanks to my hon. Friend that the subject has been discussed today. Neither in this Parliament nor in many previous Parliaments has there been a formal discussion on civil defence. I think it the simple duty of the House of Commons to discuss this question at least once a year. I do not understand how we can criticise a local authority for not discussing the matter unless we are prepared to discuss it.
The importance of civil defence is something which should be kept before the minds of the people as a useful way of serving the public. We should have a more comprehensive annual report on civil defence. The page in the Statement on Defence referring to civil defence may be a little fuller in detail than the statement on defence generally. But the information given, though necessarily of a general character, does not get down to figures. I consider that as much information about civil defence should be presented to Parliament as is given about the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. On the basis of such a report we should have debates regularly and that would appear to be the most useful thing which this House could do to keep the subject before the public. If nothing else is achieved as a result of this debate it will at any rate have indicated the great need for a wider and fuller discussion of the subject.

3.17 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I take a different view about civil defence from those which have been advanced so far. It appears to me that civil defence is an integral part of our deterrent. A deterrent is a threat, and if that threat is to be any good it must be a credible threat. When people threaten to take action without taking any steps whatever to guard


themselves from the inevitable consequences of their act, the threat is not taken very seriously. To me that seems to be our position. It is no use talking about an independent deterrent, or even a collective deterrent, when no credible steps have been taken to protect oneself from the consequences of that which it is threatened will be done.
I suppose that the Cuba week-end was, in nuclear terms, a test crisis period. I do not know, and I do not know of anyone who does know, what was the warning that should have been given. Apparently the Home Office did not know. Somebody said it might have been by the sounding of a siren. In some districts, including my own constituency, sirens are used to summon fire brigades and so that might have been a little confusing. Someone else said that a Morse letter—I forget which one—would be banged out on the top of a dustbin. This sort of preparation, coupled with the fact that during the crisis week-end the gentleman in charge of civil defence for the Metropolis had not considered it worth while to suspend the week-end leave of his key staff, indicates the measure not only of our defensive imbalance but our deterrent threat.
I believe that we cannot have an independent deterrent in these islands, whatever means of conveyance, whether it be Skybolt, Polaris or Blue Streak or anything else. There is a simple geographical reason why we cannot defend ourselves at all from the consequences. I believe that is the final answer to the possibility of our independent deterrent. It is rather a different picture when we look at the collective deterrent as to whether we can do something to protect ourselves from the attenuated blow which we might receive after the main counter-force effort of the Americans. This is what one is seeking to make credible. Nevertheless, in nuclear terms I cannot see this as a picture of keeping local government going as before, or indeed of volunteer services being remotely adequate to cope with the situation.
My view is, and has been for a long time, and I have put it to the House before, that if we are to keep civil defence at all on a credible basis it ought to come under Territorial command.

Civil defence ought to be the responsibility of the Territorial Army, and it would probably become almost its major responsibility. I believe also that in a state of emergency the whole of the fire services should come under Territorial command. Under nuclear attack the possibility of either local or central government would almost immediately disappear and government would depend on district military commands which would be the only thing that could be kept going. One should think in terms of bringing civil defence and the fire services in emergency under Territorial command and realise that that is the only way one could deal with a nuclear attack.

Mr. William Yates: As a Territorial Army officer it would be fair for me to say that, as I understand, the Territorial Army commander works directly with the civil defence officer for the area. The hon. and learned Member proposes to take a step much further. He proposes that the fire services and other services should come under military command and should prepare themselves for military command in emergency. That is a very big step which I should like us to think more about.

Mr. Paget: Yes, that is exactly what I propose.

3.23 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am sure that everybody agrees that the hon. Member for Wokingham {Mr. van Straubenzee) has rendered a distinct service in enabling us to have a debate, however short, on this important subject of civil defence which unfortunately we seldom debate in the House. The hon. Member was studiously moderate in the way in which he approached the subject. and on the whole he seemed to suggest that everything was all right in what we are doing about civil defence at the moment.
There are some who take a totally different view. At the one extreme there are people who say that any money spent on civil defence is money wasted, because nothing can be done usefully to protect the civilian population in the event of nuclear war. There are others who say that if we are to take civil defence seriously we should spend more money on it to make it more effective. I think


that my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) suggested that there would be a ease for much more expenditure on civil defence.
We would all agree with the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Wokingham to the 600,000 people who are at present actively engaged giving time voluntarily and willingly to this work of civil defence. I hope that nothing will be said in the House to discourage them in the efforts which they are making to prepare for some emergency, however unpredictable it may be and whatever its nature.
I also would agree with the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley), who rather dissented from my hon. Friend in hoping that this matter would always be one in which co-ordinated effort initiated by the local authorities was regarded as not only invaluable but, I should have thought, indispensable. It is only recently that in Islington we had a civil defence demonstration week which was very widely attended and during which all the various organisations in the borough and outside engaged in various aspects of civil defence. The ambulance service, the fire brigade, nurses and the Red Cross all joined in the operation and there were demonstrations of the latest equipment. There were indications of what safety-first measures could he taken and so forth.
Whether it will have any use or not, it would be a great mistake to discourage this vast effort that is taking place throughout the country in order that a certain number of people may be trained and may know how to act in an emergency wherever it arises. I, for one, hope that the Government will continue to encourage all the existing efforts in that behalf.
At the same time, I think that we in this House are entitled to ask the Government to tell us much more than they have hitherto done of what precisely is their policy with regard to civil defence. For example, is there any policy or scheme for evacuation in the event of a nuclear war or a near-nuclear war? Is it their conception that any such plans would be impracticable and, therefore, unnecessary or too costly? Is it their policy that there should be provision for deep shelters, or any shelters, against the risks and hazards of a pos-

sible nuclear war, or is it their conception that preparations on any such scale would be too costly and unnecessary?
With regard to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, I suppose it is fair to comment that civil defence precautions would be necessary, whether we took the view that there is any value in an independent deterrent or not. There are arguments for and against an independent deterrent, but, whatever may be the merits of that argument, we should still be at hazard if a nuclear war broke out, in which perhaps we were not directly concerned. Therefore, the merits of how much money should be spent on civil defence are quite independent of how much money should be spent on an independent deterrent, if any.
Gratifying as it is to know that this vast work is being done by so many people in civil defence, I think it is also worth while observing that at the present day, as compared with, shall we say, six or seven years ago, it does not seem to me that many people live or act as if there were much fear of a nuclear war. People go about their ordinary day-to-day affairs. They make plans for the future, buy or rent houses, have families, provide for future education, old-age pensions and so forth, not only in this country but all over the world, on the assumption that matters are going along peacefully year after year, that progress will be made and that expansion will take place.
Therefore, psychologically we have to face the fact that for the most part people in this and other countries are acting as if the fear of a nuclear war were receding. I would say that to date experience shows that the deterrent has proved effective to deter, and has in fact proved an effective deterrent against war. The evidence not only of Cuba but of other events during the past two or three years confirms the impression. If that impression be right, it follows, I think, that the more gruesome, the more powerful and the more violent nuclear bombs become and, therefore, the greater the holocaust and the greater the danger to civilisation if ever there were a nuclear war, the more likely it becomes that these great nuclear bombs will not be used.
If this is so, there still remains the risk that there may be an event less than


nuclear war, in which case it becomes all the more necessary that the resources of civil defence should be available to the population. While we shall all support the text of the Motion which the hon. Gentleman has proposed, we look to the Home Office to take this opportunity to tell us more than it has yet done about its actual plans.

3.31 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I have listened with great interest to this debate, and I believe that there are one or two hon. or right hon. Members who would like to say a few words before the end. I shall try to leave a few minutes for this purpose, but I suggest to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) that he will have a very good chance next week to speak on the closely related subject of defence in general, in which debate, I imagine, civil defence will be in order because, as several hon. Members have said, the two subjects are closely linked.
I welcome the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). Lest there should be any danger of its being talked out, I say at once that the Government wholeheartedly support it and welcome it. On behalf of the civil defence services, I thank my hon. Friend and all others who have spoken for their tributes, with which, I believe, all right hon. and hon. Members sympathise, as the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said, regardless of their views on the much greater and more controversial problems of the nuclear deterrent.
My hon. Friend has been a great supporter of civil defence for a number of years, both locally in Berkshire and nationally. He has been a welcome visitor to the Civil Defence Staff College, at which, incidentally, any other hon. Member interested in the subject would also be welcome if he would like me to make arrangements. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend deal firmly with some rather carping criticisms of the civil defence volunteers in an Adjournment debate last December.
Briefly, I refer the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to the record of that debate in which he will find answered in some detail

most of the points he made about the state of readiness at the time of the Cuba crisis. We can all pass round funny stories about these things, but I think that he will find that the facts were a little different from some of the stories which were circulated at that time.
After that debate, my hon. Friend wrote an excellent article in "Peace News" on the subject of civil defence. I think that it is greatly to the credit of that paper, which holds views very different from those held by many of us in the House, that it published this article and, later admitted an error of fact about the number of volunteers in the civil defence services, with which my hon. Friend began his very constructive speech.
I shall not go into the numbers again. My hon. Friend gave the figures accurately, since he had them in a Written Answer from the Home Office. However, I add to the tally not only, as the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) did, such voluntary organisations as the Order of St. John and the Red Cross but also the Women's Voluntary Service for Civil Defence, which functions as an organisation over and above those women who happen to be members of the W.V.S. and also of the Civil Defence Corps.
This is not the end of the account, of course, because, if this calamity which we are all determined shall never befall us were to happen, the civil defence service would not be functioning unaided. It would be functioning in conjunction with the regular police forces, the special constabulary, the fire service, the ambulance service and, of course, all the available manpower of the Armed Services.
I shall not discuss in detail the very interesting point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton about putting the whole thing under the Territorial Army. I think that the Territorial Army might have other functions which would make it difficult for it to exercise this function in an emergency. I can tell all hon. Members interested in this subject that we shall give particular attention to any such constructive suggestions that have been put forward in the debate.
Turning to the second point in the Motion, which is concerned with the


rôle of civil defence in a nuclear war, it is, of course, recognised—the Government have never made any secret of it, and I wish to emphasise it again, because I agree with all hon. Members who have made the point that the British public can certainly take it if they are fully apprised of the facts—that this would be an unimaginable catastrophe if it were to happen.
There would be millions of casualties; there would be incalculable damage. How much it is impossible to estimate on any rational basis in advance because of so many unknown variables—enemy intentions, the weight and distribution of attack, the weather and so forth—but whatever did happen we believe, and we base all our calculations on that belief, that there would be millions of survivors who would need help which could only be given by organised and trained people with plans prepared in advance. I think that must be common ground to all of us.
Every exercise and every scientific appreciation which has been made of this problem has shown that a few simple precautions, such as set out in what is called the "Householders' Handbook", with the assistance of civil defence organisations, would enable millions to live who would otherwise inevitably die. But since it would be impossible in advance to say where in the country the survivors would be, obviously the preparatory organisation must be undertaken everywhere, even though inevitably in the centre of catastrophe the organisation itself would be wiped out.
I shall not elaborate the break-down of the organisation. One could take a great deal of time over all these different sections, headquarters, wardens, rescue and so on. I should like to comment very briefly on the interesting points made by the hon. Member for Accrington and the hon. Member for Islington, East who took opposing views about the rôle of the local authorities in these matters. The hon. Member for Accrington said that we ought not to be too much guided by experience in the last war, and that is certainly true, although one cannot forget certain fundamental lessons. But a future war would be totally different. The lessons of the last war about the rôle of the local authorities would not necessarily be applicable in a future war. The great advantage of the local

authority organisation is that it exists in any case, and if it were not harnessed to the civil defence services an immensely complex, expensive, additional administrative structure would have to be created, which would mean delay over the whole country.

Mr. H. Hynd: I hope that I did not express myself too badly. What I had in mind was that perhaps this matter could come under the police. I believe that it should be done locally, but not necessarily by the town hall. In the last war in which I was concerned with this matter I know that there was great confusion.

Mr. Woodhouse: I take the point and we shall look at it most sympathetically. I wanted only to stress that, in common with other constructive reorganisation points, it may not prove to be so easy on close inspection. Certainly, I shall not say, echoing the words of the hon. Member for Islington, East, that everything is all right. We certainly do not believe that. We never shall believe it. We work the whole time to improve the organisation in the light of developments, and the situation, both strategic and scientific, is constantly changing so that we are constantly reorganising. We are continually working to reduce the margin of time needed to put the whole thing on an operational footing, and we shall never be satisfied with any improvement that we may make.
We look on this organisation as an insurance policy against disaster. Of course, no one can argue that having an insurance policy tends to provoke disaster, but, if we have an insurance policy, we must pay a premium for it, and for civil defence we pay the premium partly in service and partly in money. I will touch briefly on the money part first.
Home defence is, as has been said, an integral part of our national defence. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton on this point, although I certainly take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) about the desirability of having separate and serious discussion in the House on civil defence apart from national defence. This, like many other points, struck a sympathetic chord, but, of course, I am not in control of the business of the House.
Expenditure on civil defence is only a very small proportion of the expenditure on total defence, and it would not be possible to make it a vastly greater proportion without a very radical change of policy, for instance, over shelters, to which I will return in a moment. It would be possible to move the expenditure up into the £100 million bracket only if such a radical' change of policy were made. But the present more modest level is growing. It was roughly £15 million in 1960–61, £18 million the following year, just under £20 million last year and it will be £23 million in 1963–64, an increase of over 50 per cent. on expenditure for three years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley made the point that a high proportion of this expenditure is earmarked for improving and perfecting communications of all kinds, which we recognise to be one of the most vital elements.
I said that the premium contained an element of service as well as an element of money. I should like to join in the very sincere tribute paid to the thousands of volunteers who have come forward. I cannot imagine why anyone should wish to undermine their morale or sense of duty and sacrifice in an essentially humanitarian task which is, to my mind, perfectly consistent with a belief in the principles of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I can find no inconsistency there.
Those of us who have visited the headquarters and training schools of civil defence have been unanimously and almost unexpectedly impressed and, in my own case, taken by surprise by the efficiency and, of course, enthusiasm, which goes without saving, of those taking part and by their skill in handling very elaborate equipment which is now available not on an entirely sufficient scale but on a great and growing scale and which we are determined shall be in the hands of all those who need it down to the lowest level as soon as it can practically be done.
The last part of the Motion is concerned with the reorganisation of the Civil Defence Corps, and I should like to dwell on this for a few minutes because I do not think it is widely known what has been happening since the beginning of last October, which is a very important development. Our start-

ing point for this reorganisation was an acceptance of the fact that the number of volunteers which would be needed in wartime could not be expected to come forward in peacetime, although, of course, in a crisis there is at once a large rush to help, but this can be an encumbrance. A large number of untrained volunteers can be a liability.
Therefore, the basis for our reorganisation is to provide what in some contexts are called cadres—I hesitate to use the word "nucleus" in this context—for an expanded civil defence to be assembled at very short notice in a crisis. This is why a premium has to be placed on quality and on the level of training. This is the reason for the variety of categories which we have introduced in the reorganisation.
A new member entering the Civil Defence Corps is now required to undertake the standard training, which totals about 50 hours and is normally spread out over one year, although it can be spread over two years. At the end of that time, he or she takes a test. Those who fail the test or do not wish to proceed further can choose to go on the reserve. Those who pass the test can choose to enter either Class A or Class B of the new organisation on a three-year engagement.
In Class A, they undertake a commitment to go through advanced training totalling 50 hours. They undertake to take part in large-scale exercises and to be available for other duties such as, for instance, in a civil emergency of the kind to which the hon. Member for Accrington referred. Many hon. Members will remember the catastrophic gales in the North Country last year and the role played by the civil defence in mitigating the suffering there. If personnel undertake a total of 45 hours a year in Class A, they draw an annual bounty. Alternatively, if they opt for Class B, they undertake routine training of at least 12 hours a year.
We have taken care to offer existing members of the Civil Defence Corps the chance of fitting into the new scheme, on the same terms as everybody else and full recognition is given to their contribution. They have not necessarily all taken that opportunity. Some of them may have felt that this was the point at which to resign, either


because things were too different from what they used to be in the last war or because of age or some other reason. We believe, however, that the result of the scheme, which we have fully discussed with the local authorities, will lead to increased status, prestige and efficiency of the 'Corps.
A member of the Corps has to prove himself in a way that he never did before in order to advance to higher rank, including officer status. When this began last October, we naturally realised that there was bound to be a drop in the total membership of the Corps as a result. There was, in fact, a drop of 47,000 in the December quarter last year. We accepted this; we knew that it was bound to happen.
We are sorry that so many personnel went, but we do not believe that in the long run it will be to the disadvantage of the Corps. We were glad to see that in the same quarter, the recruiting rate was higher than in any corresponding quarter in any previous year except 1961, which was exceptional because of the Berlin crisis.
I must add a word on a subject to which both my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and other hon. Members have referred, although it is not explicitly within the Motion, about advice to the public. We have always recognised, and I hope that we shall be seen to do so more emphatically in the future, the great importance of keeping the public informed about the effects of nuclear weapons.
For some years, it was not possible to give absolutely complete and accurate information to all the public, because there was no certainty in our minds of the sort of information that could accurately be given. Whilst there is, of course, no certainty, there is now a greater probability and a more reliable assessment can be made.
In 1957, the Government began issuing a series of official publications with "The Hydrogen Bomb", which was written in non-technical language for the ordinary reader. At the same time, however, we have thought it right to make available in peace-time more detailed advice about the sort of quite simple physical preparations which could be made in the home in the event of a crisis.
Many hon. and right hon. Members will have seen the Civil Defence Handbook No. 10 which is entitled, "Advising the Householder on Protection against Nuclear Attack" which was issued in January. I should like to emphasise that it was issued for training the Civil Defence Corps, and for the police and fire and other services, and the National Hospital Services Reserve. It has been put on sale to the public.
Some people have suggested, like my hon. Friend, that it ought not to be put on sale: but that it ought to be distributed free to the public. I do not mind admitting that this was a question which gave us very anxious thought at the time when this booklet was being prepared—which was before the Cuba crisis, so it was not in any way influenced by the Cuba crisis. For a number of reasons, not from fear of scaring the public, we decided that it would not be right to distribute it now in a way which would appear to suggest that we were positively suggesting to the public that they ought to take the measures indicated in this booklet now, because we are not doing so, and that for more than one reason.
For one thing, to take even the fairly simple precautions now would involve a considerable dislocation of their daily life. We do not wish householders in present circumstances to start blocking up windows and taking other emergency measures.
Moreover—and this is what I was referring to a moment ago when I said that in previous years we have not published so much information—in the light of experience some of the advice which is given in these booklets is liable to become out of date, and perhaps even to become out of date fairly soon, and to be superseded. So it would clearly be a fruitless and unprofitable prospect to suggest to the public, or even appear to suggest to the public, that this is the kind of thing they are being asked to do now.

Mr. H. Hynd: Why charge 9d. for it?

Mr. Woodhouse: Precisely in order not to attract too much public activity based on it now.

Mr. Paget: A deterrent.

Mr. Woodhouse: The figure of 9d. happens to be the figure at which booklets


in this series have been priced. That is the only reason for the figure.
If the time ever came for the householders to take such precautions, if we wanted them to do so, the information in this booklet would, of course, be disseminated—broadcast and put out to the public in every possible way.
The hon. Member for Islington, East asked me to comment on two other points. One was the question of shelters and the other evacuation policy, only we now use the term "dispersal" because it is a slightly different concept. As for shelters, it is a question we are now looking at again in the light of a changing situation, a changing scientific appreciation of the possibility of shelters. The hon. Gentleman may know that the Americans went through this exercise a year or so ago and then did a rapid about-turn after they came to the conclusion of spending a very large sum on shelters. We do not want to have to do that, and we are making a careful assessment of this problem first.
As to dispersal, there was a reference to the policy for dispersal of some parts of the population in the 1962 Report on Defence. A dispersal scheme is being prepared. It will be a voluntary scheme under which people in the priority classes, who are largely women and children, would move from large centres of population to reception areas which are in parts of West and South-West England, and Wales, and there will be similar arrangements in Scotland. This does not necessarily mean that even in a crisis the scheme would be operated. It would be a large undertaking, and there are many factors to consider, such as the effects on families, industrial activity, and the life of the country as a whole, and also, of course, the effects abroad of any announcement of an intention to disperse the population. None of these things can be foreseen, and the purpose of the scheme is therefore to try to judge whether it would be the right course in an emergency situation. If we did not have such a scheme we should have no choice, because a mass move of millions of people could not be improvised in an emergency situation, and it is to make such a choice available that we are preparing the scheme and have informed the local

authorities of it and given guidance about the detailed planning we want them to carry out.
I think I have covered most of the points raised in the debate. I merely want to say in conclusion that I agree with all those hon. Members who have emphasised that it is a humanitarian duty which lies on all of us to enable as many as possible to live through a calamity of this kind, if it were to happen, and to restore ordered life after it. I think it is an inescapable duty for the reasons very cogently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, which I will not repeat. But I welcome the opportunity to say these things, and I hope that the Motion and the many hon. Members who have spoken in support of it will help to encourage even more recruits of high quality to join the Civil Defence Corps.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I do not want to talk the Motion out, but I should like to make a few comments on what the Minister has been good enough to say. He admits, with the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), that there is a risk that we might have nuclear war. It is a real risk. If it were not, we should not be discussing civil defence today. Mr. Dean Rusk said in November that the real lesson of the Cuba crisis was that nuclear war is a possibility which may happen to us at any time. We must also remember that President Kennedy has said, not once but often, that what he calls "the nuclear sword of Damocles" hanging over the world by a slender thread may be cut at any instant by accident, miscalculation or madness. It is only seventeen years since we had Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese generals in power, and they were all mad.
It could happen that we had the use of nuclear weapons without total and complete destruction of our country, but I think it is most unlikely. Hon. Members should read the Home Office pamphlet on the hydrogen bomb, of which the Minister spoke, and see what it says about London. They should read the sentence in which it says that London is the only target in which there would not be a lot of open space covered by a 10-megaton bomb—and 10-megaton bombs are the type that are being prepared.
We could have a conventional war, and for that reason I desire to say nothing to discourage the people who are engaged in the patriotic task of civil defence. But I would urge on the Minister that while the Government are advertising for volunteers they ought really to tell us a little more about what the war would be like if it came. I remember that in 1955 the Home Office briefed journalists to the effect that London could take eight nuclear bombs and still survive. I have here an enormous advertisement which appeared in all the national newspapers in September asking for volunteers. Why does it not give us some description of what the war would be like if it came, so that people know what it is they are preparing against?
I do not believe in shelter or evacuation as a policy for strengthening the deterrent. I conclude by urging on the Minister that we should be told more and that we should have an annual debate on this subject in Government time. It is not good enough to have an hour and a quarter on a Friday afternoon on a private Member's Motion. We ought to have a debate every year. This is what the life of the nation may depend on.
I end by saying that there are two forms of civil defence, to both of which the Government are committed. One is what we are discussing today. The other is general and complete disarmament. They are both Government policies. The Government are spending on civil defence double the amount of money spent on the United Nations and all its activities in the highest spending year, 1962, since the United Nations began. I think they ought to advertise disarmament as well. They should advertise the Government's pledges.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House commends the work of the 600.000 men and women engaged in Civil Defence in Great Britain, believes they have a vital and effective part to play in the defence forces of these islands even in a nuclear age, and welcomes the reorganisation of the Civil Defence Corps as leading to a more efficient and balanced force.

Orders of the Day — WORLD SECURITY AGENCY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

EDUCATION (SHROPSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]

4.1 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: At the end of rather a long week of travelling to and from Shropshire—I think that I have done 600 miles—I do not want to run out on this problem. Perhaps we should have helicopters running a service between here and the Midlands.
One of the tasks which befall every Member of this House is from time to time to investigate situations which arise in his constituency where there might appear to be some misunderstanding in the general administration, and today I wish to deal with the education position in my constituency. The tone of my speech is in no sense critical of those responsible for the education service in Shropshire, and I hope that what I have to say will perhaps improve, in certain respects, certain administrative developments. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is very interested in this problem, because we have discussed it.
Shropshire's education programme has been quite outstanding over the last ten or twenty years, and there is not one person in the county who lays any criticism. Indeed, perhaps one of the greatest secretaries for education that Shropshire has ever had has been Mr. Martin Wilson. The mark he has left on education in the county will go down in its history. He has been honoured for his services, and I commend his work.
Mr. Wilson has always been very helpful to me when I have wanted to visit schools, and we go round together or he sends one of his officers with me.


He has been aided by a valuable education committee of long standing. One of the greatest driving forces for education in Shropshire has been the chairman of the County Council, Sir Offley Wakeman. He has devoted more time to public service in Shropshire than I have been in this world.
How does this problem arise? It is one which is of interest to every parent in Shropshire. I want to speak today of a widowed mother and her two children. I do not want to mention her name more than once because she was diffident about this debate taking place. She now has another application before the education committee for a grant, but she decided that this debate should take place in the general interest of education in Shropshire and not on the particular subject as far as she is concerned.
Nevertheless, her case does help us to see the problem. She lives in her marvellous home at the school house at Ellerdine, one of the loveliest parts of our county. There she works as a teacher. She has spent almost her entire life in teaching. However, I am referring to her not as a teacher but as a mother and a widow.
Her eldest son was born in 1952. When she was deciding where he should be educated, like most mothers she thought of the philosophy of Conservative education policy that every parent in this country should have the right to decide what education his child should have. She took advice from the local education authority about where she should send her eldest son, Roger John Anthony Price, because she had noted that the Shropshire education programme allowed children of primary school age and over to go to a new form of schooling at Millichope in Warwickshire. She also noted that parents from the village in which she lived obtained grants for their children to attend these county schools.
Nevertheless, she sent her son to the independent Wolverhampton Royal School to get on and make the best of the education that he could obtain there. She hoped and thought that there would be an opportunity for her to receive some form of grant to maintain her son at that school, for she also had a small girl to educate. Very reasonably, the education authority said with regret that

it was not its business to maintain Shropshire children in an area outside the control of the county, and Wolverhampton is outside the county area. On 16th May, she was told officially that there would be no grants for children to attend independent schools outside the county.
However, she made a rather interesting discovery. She thought that what had seemed to be a fairly fair and open decision would be applied to everybody, but she found that at the school which her boy attended there were other children who were maintained. What was more interesting was that the lady whose children who were at the Wolverhampton Royal School came from Shropshire and the lady herself was a county council employee. Mrs. Price made further inquiries and wrote to me.
In order that the debate should not cause any upset or difference between us, I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) in whose constituency the second lady lives, and he said that he would always remain my ally and that he saw no reason why I should not mention his constituent. The lady herself kindly wrote to me and said that I could use her name when I discussed the case of Mrs. Price and that the only difference between her and Mrs. Price was that she was a county midwife and district nurse and was therefore on call all the time and that Mrs. Price had two children whereas she had three.
It was not long before inquiries at the education department were resumed to see how it was that Mrs. Price could not receive even a maintenance grant for her children while another person in the county was able to obtain very good and substantial grants for her children. The answers were not very satisfactory, because on each occasion letters came back to say that they were still not prepared to make grants to these children attending this independent school. Mrs. Price therefore decided that the best thing she could do was to put in an official application—not just write in to ask how her application was getting on, but make an official application in writing to the education authority in Shropshire, and ask that her services be taken into account and whether, in view of the present situation in respect of the other lady's children at Wolverhampton


Royal, she would be allowed to receive the grant.
There was some slight delay in getting a reply, but eventually it came back that the county would not pay a maintenance grant to a child who went to an independent school outside the county. At this juncture the county councillor wrote to the education committee to ask what were the circumstances in this case. At the same time I wrote directly to the clerk of the Shropshire County Council and said,
I should be so grateful if I could please have a copy of the minutes referring to Mrs. Price's application and to its official rejection by the education committee".
Neither the county councillor nor myself, nor anybody else, has been able to obtain any minutes or any record of the rejection of this application. That is despite the fact that Mrs. Price's father received a formal letter from the county education officer in which he said,
A final and formal decision has been taken in regard to her application.
I understand that what happens when matters like these are examined—whether a grant should be given—is that they are dealt with by the chairman of the education committee and the chairman of the grants committee, and that that is called the committee of chairmen of education. I cannot find—and I think that I should have been able to find—any official record of the actions which they take. It was very good of the clerk to the county council to write to me unofficially trying to explain matters to me before the debate took place, but nowhere can I find any record being kept of these decisions being made. I suggest to my hon. Friend that where public money is used, or a decision is taken not to use it, and where official applications are made in respect of local government money, supported by money from the House, some record should be submitted to the major committee for its monthly meeting. I do not know what other authorities do, but I hope that as a result of the debate matters concerning grants will be examined a little more carefully by the Clerk of the County Council of Shropshire.
It is rather a sad story. I put a Question in the House about it in November, when I asked why Mrs. Price had not obtained her maintenance grant. The Minister replied that there were no

sufficient grounds for giving this grant because the child was not of a secondary school age.
That seemed an extraordinary reply for the Minister to make, remembering that there have been five official replies saying that the grant could not be given for children to enter an independent school. It does not even apply in the case of the other lady whom I have mentioned, from a neighbouring constituency—Mrs. Tuck. Alas for the education authority, her children were under secondary school age. I am at a loss to understand the reason for the refusal to award this widowed mother a maintenance grant for her son. She realises what will happen, and, having spent money out of her savings, she hopes to get a grant from the county council during the course of next year.
But this sort of education problem is not the only one that exists in the county. I must draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is a great gap between those who draw grants and receive help and those who are just outside the area of education from this authority's point of view. The question of children who are mentally handicapped is not for my hon. Friend's Department; it slips out of his into the Ministry of Health. I do not know what happens at county level in this respect. But the education of everybody, whether mentally handicapped or not, is vitally important in the county. For five years children have been kept in quite unsuitable conditions, from the educational point of view, in Wellington. For the last two or three years I have asked when the county is going to make a better effort on behalf of mentally handicapped children. There has been a great deal of discussion in Parliament and in the newspapers about what can be done with handicapped children, and Shropshire will also have to consider the matter.
I cannot disguise from the Minister the fact that a large deputation of people came to my office from the Wrekin Teachers' Association. I was surprised when the Minister of Education yesterday said that he was willing to discuss with the Burnham Committee the question of salary scales, over which there has been some dispute. This is no' quite fair. Two Ministry representatives sit with the Burnham Committee, as observers. Am I to understand that


during the whole seven months' discussion neither of these observers pointed out to the Burnham Committee the fact that the salary scales that it was arranging would not be approved by the Minister, because he did not like the emphasis being placed on the lower salary scales.
I repeat what I said in 1961. If the Government are dissatisfied with the system under which the Burnham Committee works, there are two things that they can do. They can either appoint a completely independent inquiry to examine the status of our teaching profession in society, or, if that is not possible, they can appoint a Royal Commission.
I am grateful to have been able to put before my hon. Friend, in the few moments that have been available to me this afternoon, these three problems, which involve the future of our children and of our country. Our country needs to keep its brains here. We need the best we can get. In this small island we cannot afford to neglect any talent whatever, whether it be in Shropshire or any other county.

4.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): It would be optimistic of me to imagine that, in the few minutes available to me today, I could do justice to the three problems which my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) has raised. In fact, I believe that it is a constituency problem upon which he would wish me to dwell, although in his closing remarks my hon. Friend referred to Burnham and to the position of mentally handicapped children.
I do not intend to be drawn this afternoon into any controversy with him on the subject of teachers' salaries and the Burnham negotiations. As he will probably know, there is today a meeting of the Burnham Committee, and I do not believe that it would help in arriving at the satisfactory outcome which we all desire for me to discuss the matter with him this afternoon. I would, however, point out to my hon. Friend that the assessors from the Ministry do not sit on the Burnham Committee in order to give the Committee my right hon. Friend's views. They are not there to

give either their views or his views; they are there as assessors.
On the subject of mentally handicapped children, I believe that my hon. Friend's remarks may have been prompted by some dissatisfaction in his constituency with a training centre which has been under some difficulties in the recent cold weather. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the handicapped children who attend training centres are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. My hon. Friend suggested that this was an unsatisfactory arrangement. if I took his point correctly.

Mr. W. Yates: Yes.

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend is saying to the House that mentally handicapped children, whether in special schools or in training centres, ought to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. There is obviously room for debate here—more room than is available to us this afternoon—but I would point out to my hon. Friend that the suggestion that the responsibility for these centres should be transferred to local education authorities and to the Ministry was considered and rejected by the Royal Commission on the law relating to mental illness and mental deficiency which led to the Mental Health Act, 1959. That Act. of course, followed the Royal Commission's recommendations on this point. I do not feel, therefore, that there would be much professional support for reopening this issue so soon after the passing of the Act.
I pass now to the problems of my hon. Friend's constituent. Perhaps I should first make clear the statutory position. This is a decision which lies squarely within the authority's discretion. Local education authorities have the power but not the duty to assist towards boarding fees in independent schools. Regulations made under Section 81 of the 1944 Act do not impose any obligation on an authority to give assistance. Local education authorities do, however, give some help and guidance in this matter. A Working Party set up by the then Minister reported in 1960 on this question of assistance with the cost of boarding education. The Secretary for Education for Shropshire was a member of that working party, and in paragraph 8 of its Report it said:
In ail our considerations we had children of secondary school age chiefly in mind. We


accept the commonly held view that children of primary school age should as far as possible live in a home environment and attend day schools … We consider that these children should be assisted to attend boarding schools only in exceptional circumstances.
The Report went on to suggest
categories of cases in which applications for assistance can most readily be entertained.
One of these was
cases in which home circumstances are seriously prejudicial to the normal development of the child.
But by implication throughout the Report it was made clear that they were primarily concerned with secondary school children and took the view that wherever possible children of primary school age should attend day school and be kept at home.
When this Report was published the Minister noted its recommendations to authorities and ceased to require them to obtain his approval to their arrangements for assisting with the payments of those pupils at non-maintained schools. I think that my hon. Friend will see that the action that the authority has taken in the two cases to which he has drawn the attention of the House appears to follow closely the advice given in that Report. I understand that Mrs. Price has very recently made a further application regarding her 10-year-old son for a boarding place at Newport Grammar School which is maintained, with remission of fees, or a grant towards a place at the Royal Wolverhampton School for September of this year. The result of the secondary school selection test for which the boy would be eligible will not be known until the summer and Mrs. Price has been told that the authority will consider her application then. Any remission of boarding fees at a maintained school would be in accordance with the authority's scale.
My hon. Friend has rehearsed the history of Mrs. Price's correspondence with the authority and his account of these dealings corresponds fairly closely with the details that I have been given. Nothing in the 'history of that correspondence leads me to the conclusion that the authority has behaved in any way unreasonably. My hon. Friend drew particular attention to the case of Mrs. Tuck and I was glad to hear him say that he had secured that lady's approval to his mentioning her case. I understand that Mrs. Price has also referred

to this case in her correspondence with the authority.
As my hon. Friend admitted, Mrs. Tuck is a district nurse and midwife. She lives alone, she is out all day and she is on call every night. In 1954 she applied to the authority for assistance towards boarding fees at Wolverhampton for her eldest child, a girl then aged 8. After long consideration it was decided by the education committee, in October, 1955, to treat this as an exceptional case and to give the assistance. It does not seem to me strange that the authority should have seen a very real difference between the case of Mrs. Tuck who was absent from home because of the nature of her duties, and that of Mrs. Price, who lived with her parents and was not subject to the same disabilities.
I wish in conclusion to refer briefly to the procedural point raised by my hon. Friend. I understand that in 1954 the authority decided, as a matter of policy, that applications for assistance with the cost of boarding for primary school children at independent schools should be sympathetically considered where parents were abroad and unable to provide for the education of their children in any other way. The authority then laid down the broad lines of policy upon which such cases as this should be decided. It is therefore the practice of the authority to delegate to the two chairmen to whom my hon. Friend referred the power to decide individual cases. In this instance the decision was a negative one on a matter completely within the discretion of the authority and it does not appear that the authority has acted unreasonably. I do not believe I should be justified in going behind that decision into the internal workings of the authority which is clearly a matter for the county council and the education committee.

Mr. W. Yates: One point was that, although delegated power was given to them, there should be a record made of that decision, and surely that decision must be presented to the full education committee?

Mr. Chataway: It is not for me, and I do not believe my right hon. Friend would consider it one of his functions, to dictate to a local education committee


the exact manner in which its business is to be conducted. The way in which its internal workings are ordered is a matter for the authority.

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Five o'clock.